Not Panels, It's Engagement!

Ask Jarvis (not Jeeves)

2009-04-08T12:24:00.003+08:00

A new one from our friend -

....take advantage of the opportunities it presents; to gather and share more data; to link clients with better information; to connect them with others and a potential to expand insight.

(WWGD, Collins Business, 2009)

Well said.

I thought that this was very insightful and also very powerful in terms of capturing the latest opportunities

Stretching

2009-04-01T09:02:00.002+08:00

I wrote an e-mail this morning about how we can use the latest shifts in technical and philosophical (AKA Digital) movements to stretch research. And I hit upon a great quote from Jeff Jarvis that really stretched me and hit home. It isn't a new concept by any means but never heard anyone be so clear:

"Our fixation should not be with our clients. It should be with and on the people our clients want to engage, sell and interact with". Said it all about engagement I think.

How Research is Different?

2009-03-25T07:43:00.002+08:00

In most markets advertising and marketing is changing and the dynamics are altering markets - for example Google offering software in return for ad services. And Microsoft also playing in this space.

But how is Research different?

a) In most markets you take advantage of increasing search efficiency to use keywords to deliver clicks that will drive more leads. In research this would mean that you would build panels for example by leveraging keywords like 'surveys' and so on - yet these are precisely the kind of people that we don't want too much of as they are likely to be more of the 'professional respondent' type - so efficiency isn't as high!

b) In many markets, some dynamics are moving to lower cost or 'free' in the name of efficiency. This is often supported by advertising models eg airlines. But in research this is difficult because of the wall between research and marketing

And that is what makes this industry so fascinating

Brand Image

2009-03-22T09:54:00.001+08:00

Every industry uses the internet in its own image.

Some use it to sell more products
Some use it to streamline service
Some use it to extract more and more information so that they can sell to advertisers

Research uses the internet in its own image: to gather more information as a platform for insight. And that information is rightly becoming more and more qualitative (read conversational) these days. But is that the sum total of our image? Should we not be using the internet for other opportunities across the end to end spectrum of our world? I think that the answer is not so clear now but relatively inevitable. And this is what keeps me going each day.

You?

PS I have been away from the Blog for a while. No reasonIt isn't laziness, just that not all of the rules of the game have changed!!!

Two M's

2008-11-12T13:14:00.003+08:00

I hear internet / on-line called a methodology a great deal. I think that in today's world this is somewhat misleading and actually misses the bulk of the opportunities. I think that another M word is more appropriate: Martini

Anytime, Anyplace, Anywhere

But that's not the sum total. We must break with the method word because it always was slightly misleading and now it is doesn't synchronise to what the internet will actually do

C Space

2008-10-31T07:09:00.002+08:00

I am a very keen student of the 'C' Space - in my eyes this is about how we transform and integrate to practice the principles of web 2.0 to research 2.0. This is a current mission for me to synchronise to the future as I have said many times in this Blog.

What frustrates me in much of the industry is the focus on One 'C' - the Community. This is important but we miss a trick as an industry if we only move around Communities.

I will be exploring this area more in the Blog in the weeks to come and challenging myself with some of the concepts.

Trust, Groups and Panels

2008-08-06T14:03:00.002+08:00

The transaction costs of creating a mixed group of people have collapsed in recent times. When you consider that groups are how we identify ourselves, how we add insights, how we propose to win business, how we party, how we meet our future spouse, how we work and so on this has simply enormous consequences. Ok, big picture. But let's go even bigger - yes just liek Virgin Galactic if you like (no sponsorship paid for that mention).

What is it that holds groups together? Fundamentally it is trust, right? Trust in each other, trust in the cause, trust in the transaction, trust in the relationship etc etc. And clearly the nature of trust is changing too and being expressed in new ways. For example, I have heard it said many times that eBay's vital currency is trust, that Pierre Omidyar its founder basically believed that people are good. I am sure that Wikipedia is maybe based around a similar narrative. Well, I know it is.

So the point is, when we talk about 'panels' there is often an inherent distrust of the panelists, the data quality and so on. And whilst the magnitude and direction of this distrust has changed over time, it is still there in some way in some quarters. So why it is good enough for eBay and not for 'panels'.

That gap is profoundly interesting....

CItizen Researchers

2008-07-30T10:38:00.002+08:00

In the past there have been occasions where technological change has led to swift societal change. And this has usually resulted from the fact that something that was once scarce becomes abundant overnight. For example, the invention of Movable Type led to the printing press which greatly expanded the disribution of text and messages.

Now we have a similar shift which of course where digitalisation is changing the nature of Journalism, Photography and Music.

In all cases we see that what was once described as a profession is changing. Mass amateurisation is changing the nature of who can publish and who can filter the information. So we have professionals but we still have others who can do for the love (and maybe, yes, the money too....)

What about research? Is research not also undergoing rapid digitalisation? And in a world where everyone is a citizen researcher what is left? Well, firstly a rapid re-evaluation of what research is, and what the profession is (and always was). Secondly, increasingly the edge is in data streams in terms of the professional vs the amateur.

So we move from an emphasis on people to proprietary infrastructure to integrate.

Research as a Service

2008-07-26T20:57:00.003+08:00

There is no doubt that marketing is becoming ever more like a service. A service that has utility to break through each of our personal bubbles by being personal, anticipated and relevant. One only has to look at behavioural targeting to see this trend.

Will research do the same? It seems to me that what the internet does is to amplify the very humanistic need which is to connect with others. Now we have the ability to connect with people from anywhere about things that we could only have dreamed of a short time ago. Some of these connections are positive, some not so positive (depending on your perspective of course). But this is where the interest is - connecting with micro-markets at a personal level.

Just as marketing does. Just as will research will do. Bring humans together to understand them deeper than we have ever been able to do. And that is happening whether we like it or not. And whether we talk about internet penetration levels or not.

Accumulation of Human Capital

2008-07-19T16:03:00.002+08:00

Marx once wrote about the inevitabily of another C word - Communism. Whether you agree with that is up to you but there is something very useful in his thinking. Inherent contradictions in each method of accumulation would lead to the next linear phase from feudalism thru capitalism thru socialism.

In Russia, it is widely acknowledged that they tried to jump one phase with interesting consequences. China? Is that now also possible with communistic research? Will we see organisations jump one phase of on-line research and go directly to another? Will we see some countries or regions skip a phase of on-line accumulation? I think that we already are.

The consequences of this are going to be interesting and unknown just like those above. And that is what gets me out of bed in the morning. You?

Small Fish in a Big C

2008-07-11T07:31:00.002+08:00

At the moment all of the things that I read and play with revolve around C. So I am calling it the C Space.

Collaboration
Conversation
CrowdSource
Closeness
Cocreation
Ok, yes you can you have Community as well. If you must.

Reflection on the Year to date

2008-06-23T09:04:00.002+08:00

My blogging activity has been pitiful so far this year and this reflects the fact that we are working on a great many things at present, head down trying to get this show on the road.

I also have to share that this has not been my year - so far I have been caught up in:

A Twister (Ohio)
A Typhoon (Hong Kong)
A Snow Storm (ShangHai)
An Earthquake (Xi'An)

It makes you think a little differently about what we are doing. Back to the landmark Blogging soon....

The River of Hope

2008-04-15T11:46:00.002+08:00

I must step up my blogging activity, too many fingers in too many pies at present. But it's temporary.

There once was a world where we made products. We made TV adverts which interrupted people. That world changed and it became slowly less efficient. Then we changed the nature of the TV adverts such that it was all about salience and stand out. And now we cannot even do that easily because the world is just too cluttered and digitalisation is eroding what it means to be mass market. And now we have behavioural targeting.

There once was a world where we interrupted people to do research. And it became less effective over time as response rates and attention levels declined. And we developed panels to deal with the issue. The problem was that the panel came under strain as communities and the number of people willing to take part in the panel / research company equation changed in degree.

Here is my point. Today some commentators talk about 'river sampling' (intercepting people on the web to take surveys) as an approach to supplement the managed access panel ideal. We have come full circle. And in the same way that advertising shouted harder when the model came under strain so it is with the way we engage people. The trouble is that the river model is stil built for the benefit of the researcher and not the person taking the survey per se. Until we address this it is just a short term solution.

Or to put it another way:

'the web is the worst technology ever invented to intercept people who don't want to be intercepted'. That sums it up nicely. And that is the problem of the river - we need to evolve the panel model, not go backwards.

NSync

2008-03-10T14:21:00.000+08:00

Forrester: Agencies Need to RebootFeb 8, 2008NEW YORK Forrester Research believes today's ad agencies are not well-structured to take on tomorrow's marketing challenges, needing to move from making messages to establishing community connections.In a new report, the research firm paints a grim view of the current state of advertising, which it believes is in "a world of hurt" because consumers are tuning out the messages the industry is predicated on producing. Instead, it believes shops need to be organized around communities, not disciplines. What it is calling "the connected agency" would not only know certain communities but also be active members of these groups. Pushing messages would give way to encouraging voluntary engagement, and ongoing conversations would replace time-based campaigns."I can't say there's an agency now that's the agency of the future," said Peter Kim, a Forrester Research analyst and co-author of the report.The research firm is certainly not the first to assert that agencies haven't kept up with changing consumer habits and technology. Accenture in November said the shift from analog to digital media is catching shops flat-footed.In Forrester's view, a simple fact is driving the need for wrenching change in how advertising agencies are structured: consumers increasingly do not trust marketing messages. Instead, they rely on advice from friends and others in their various communities to make product decisions, while using tech tools to tune out ad messages they deem irrelevant. On top of that, consumer media choice has made the notion of a "captive audience," other than during some sporting events, a thing of the past."I don't think agencies are going away," Kim said. "They're going to be the ones that help marketers to communities of mutual interest."He anticipates agencies made up of community members -- moms, for instance, helping Procter & Gamble play a constructive role in communities of other mothers.Since marketers will continue to focus on results from their marketing, particularly as digital media makes it easier to track, advertising agencies would get geekier, Forrester believes.Despite these changes, Forrester said creative and media agencies are still built around the mass model: to either produce messages or distribute them. Digital agencies have gone farther, in Forrester's estimation, in centering their businesses around "interaction," but it finds them lacking in the branding skills of traditional shops.Clients are finding their agencies wanting. Forrester quotes one marketing exec calling agencies "a necessary evil," rather than a strategic partner to grow his business. Another complains, "Most senior ad execs appear more comfortable with conventional channels, which they claim are 'integrated' because they have tacked on a Web site.""The first step [agencies] need to take is with digital integration," Kim said, adding that the organization of agencies around specific skill sets is the root of their problems.

Now swap 'ad agency' for many brands, organisations, products and most market research companies. This is what I was talking about in Australia. More to follow....

Peak Community

2008-02-18T14:55:00.003+08:00

I have seen some discussions going around recently that state that Access Panels are near an end as we know them and Communities are the way of the future. This claim is the priduct of a) emerging 2.0 architectures and capabilities and of course b) to a large extent the product of the inherent dynamics behind an Access Panel as well as the long surveys that are undertaken on Panels leading to respondent fatigue. The discourse states that we are over peak panel now. The direct analogy is to Peak Oil.

I must say that this argument is packaged nicely and I fully understand the dynamics behind it and I agree with it in many areas. However, wait. Let's think again. And Oil is a great starting point which I would like to continue.

Oil is not scarce. Some have been saying that we are going to run out for 20 years. And still we don't. And even with India and China ramping up demand considerably we are still able to meet demand easily, we just artifically push up the price by the market mechanism (just). So:

- Communities are no more a solution to the problems of panels than Wind Power is to Oil
- indeed Communities are fantastic (but not new), here to stay and thrive, but alongside the Access Panel because there are many research objectives we need to play with on a daily basis that need both

Those who pushed Peak Oil did so for a reason. And so do those who push Peak Panel. The same as those who push 'overpopulation'. I agree with the thrust of the argument but history demonstrated something on Oil. And so it will with panels - you see technical, cultural and social appraisals change - so the way we use Oil has evolved. And so will the way we use panels - to an 'engaging panel' - seen that somewhere....

We Made It!

2008-02-14T14:56:00.016+08:00

Very honoured and happy to be quoted here. It's the foundation for the areas we are working in. Someone said the 'big' companies can't innovate. See you later.

http://www.mysurveyasia.com/temp/_0213180334_001.gif

Please Check in Here

2008-02-13T14:12:00.001+08:00

I am returning back to my Interactive home. I will be presenting on web 2.0 in Australia in late February / early March. Please check out this Blog for ongoing news.

http://researchevolution.blogspot.com/

Apologies for the lack of blogging recently - I have been working on some new innovations that I am now ready to share.

Everyone else is doing this sort of presentation - so why can't I? This is an area I am passionate about and have a perpsective about. And I want to share that. See you there....

Synchronisation

2008-01-03T10:02:00.000+08:00

The Access Panel as we know it primarily exists to benefit the research company and its clients. Sure, the panelists receive rewards but if we are to attract (and to continue to) a wide audience then we must go deeper and offer relevance to the client market (participants). That sounds obvious but it's ignored at present - read from the top again. This will call for a greater orientation around the participant and less around where we have been to date.

Any shift of such a nature has spatial and organisational implications. Move to a platform, combination of research and marketing. Improved support systems. Conversations. New architectures. Break down of Operations and Research.

See you there....

Beyond The Core

2007-12-18T12:28:00.001+08:00

With planning and 2008 in mind I have been considering more what our Core Competence actually is. Panel? Management? Quality? Relationships? Surveys?

It could be! Naturally, one feels advantages and competencies in these areas but actually it is probably more the combination of research, Interactive and technical elements that is closer to the mark since this creates the infrastructure, the innovation and the ways of doing. Yes, that is resilient and future proof.

2008 resilience

2007-12-17T09:16:00.000+08:00

I asked the question so it is only fair that I provide a perspective. To some extent I am not sure about the detail as this will come by the end of December but I can say this much. And it won't surprise you when I say it is about engagement:

- the quality paradigm is expanded to consider a world where the role and scope of the Access Panel is slightly changing: engagement in quality
- the need for innovation is clear, as well as to dabble in different areas because it is not clear which way the world is going: engagement in a vision
- a need for urgent positioning from an operational panel to a strategic platform: engagement in positioning

Zhende ma

2007-12-14T16:03:00.001+08:00

I read the other day that yet another company claims to have an automated system to detect poor quality responders. This clearly is to be encouraged as long as it is done properly. As I said at ESOMAR however the global perspective teaches us that no automated system is smart enough alone to detect patterns. You just cannot write it that way. It's good to know that only the human eye can really provide the final sign off.

And this leads me to talk about panel duplication. You have to continually upgrade the de-duplication systems. Lead fraud is out there and an automatic and manual system is recommended based on what I see in parts of Asia.

Zhende ma? = Really

End of Year Reminiscing

2007-12-14T15:57:00.000+08:00

At the end of the year i give myself a small window to consider what I am doing, where we have come from in the past year before sweeping that away for the new year. And I had one thought which made me think because it describes a great deal about how things have changed.

Back in 2004 when I was based in Sydney we conducted one of the *first* studies on on-line qre design which had a direct comparison of different layouts and resulting data quality and comparison. I have since seen this repeated in a number of areas. My point here is that we haven't asked the participants what they think works! Anyone remember them? And thus of course I won't share with you all of 2008 but I will share that direction.

*first* clearly doesn't necessarily mean a global first - but first in the rather limited world that I live in.

2008

2007-12-11T09:26:00.000+08:00

What are you planning for 2008? Where do you see the panel paradigm going? Will the technologies and architectures come of age so we start talking about research outcomes as opposed to 'you can do this, you can do that'?....

Virtual Reality

2007-12-01T20:58:00.000+08:00

Yes, just as I said before - this article confirms that the virtual world is the real world for a select few (not the other way around). That is where some of the researcher interest must come from.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/australians-unleash-true-selves-online/2007/11/30/1196394603400.html

CAWI

2007-11-28T15:22:00.000+08:00

I am interested by the term CAWI - Computer Assisted Web Interview. Is this not so much of a tautology to be a meaningless term? I presume that it's derivation is to offer some kind of consistency and compliment to the research field in terms of CAPI, CATI and so on.

Beyond that above I wonder if the term CAWI is a disservice to our Interactive options. Are we interviewing people in future or conversing? Who is the computer assisting? I just think that we always see Interactive as a method in this paradigm because it looks like what has gone before when what we need is a healthy dose of what Interactive could deliver beyond interviews. Call it a platform etc.

Back to Korea.

Panel Management

2007-11-26T08:17:00.000+08:00

On the way to work this morning I was thinking about the term panel management. What does that actually mean? And then I thought about an interesting twist to that notion.

Personally I am fascinated by juicing more from people and myself - how we raise creativity, innovation and performance. And I don't really see that coming from kpi's and goals since that just sounds like the Management 1.0 talk down. Actually the most remarkable efforts in human society have come from passion, discovery and going out on a limb in the face of adversity. So we need to stop aggregating human effort and mobilise effort by enabling passion, enabling people to reach their personal goal within a framework. That is the only way to build performance. It's about amplifying human effort, about everyone having a say and being creative.

That to me is what management is about. Not panel management. But Interactive management. Funny - it also sounds like the community principle: community from panels, community to MANAGE the panels.

Everyone Else is Doing It. So Why Can't I?

2007-11-20T08:39:00.000+08:00

I have heard it said recently that Second Life seems to come up at every conference as some future way to conduct market research. This is probably true! It seems to be that some people are reading 2.0 and using SL as some metaphor for a new delivery platform whilst others say 'that's not the way that the internet is going'.

I would like to add three perspectives here if I may.

a) Again, this is a triumph of form over function like we have with panels and ESOMAR. It's not SL that matters per se (good luck to them), but what does matter is that we play in a space. We dabble and we learn virtual skills that can serve our clients for the future. Let's not get caught up in SL mania

b) Those who look and commentate in this space tend to do some from a western perspective. (Again read my ESOMAR points on panels). As such they miss the rich virtual texture of something like cyWorld in Korea which is much more advanced and grained into the cultural and social fabric (for various different reasons). These are the areas we should be dabbling in!

c) I have heard it said that over time the real and the virtual persona come together. I think that this is correct. What I not always agree with however is that the virtual becomes like the real. If we look at Korea the real world starts to resemble the virtual world in terms of persona because a 'god' on-line is a simple shopkeeper (with respect) in the real world. That's the yearning effect and that is where research opportunity comes from in a projected world

That's my bit.

Marketing, not as we know it

2007-11-18T17:41:00.000+08:00

....In this Blog I always try to push. I don't want to accept Apple Pie.

I would like to make a short statement about marketing and research. Most standards talk about the separation of the two, that it must be pure research and not involve marketing. I can see the reason for this, especially when we think of the CATI era where we needed to preserve response rates to research against those telemarketers!

But in the engagement era is it not different? Are consumer conversations both marketing and research at the same time? When we build permission based research participants do we need to think in that way? For example when we recruit these people we often use marketers and we suddenly become marketing technique experts! The very people that we engage with are marketing people who often sell services across the industry.

I think that we should always challenge ourselves and not just accept rules because they may actually be in place to support a previous paradigm. I am not saying that it isn't right, but what I am saying is that we need to think about it.

Contest

2007-11-15T17:34:00.000+08:00

....Ok ESOMAR is done. The long flight home is over. The world view is out there that we must source ideas from the East if we are to maximise on quality. Of course this is largely glossed over, but I expected this. It's not a flat world. Even that is written by a westerner and is slightly flawed.

My favourite app at the moment is the Panel Contest. That's a community for me and working in good areas. What are your favourites?

Better than Six

2007-10-28T21:31:00.000+08:00

Those 6 elements that constitute on-line research quality

approach to build
management
sampling
activity and qre design
cleaning and editing
system reporting

That's what innovation looks like....and it is what our clients need to see. It is externally focused. Let's go there.

Data....But Not as We Know It

2007-10-22T15:45:00.001+08:00

....Yes, you know the stuff - numbers collected from surveys. Fall in it. Live it. Love it.

I am interested in data for two reasons at present:

a) metadata: using background passively collected data to add insight power
b) number crunching. Using historical data sets to be able to make better decisions going forwards - of course Amazon referrals is a classic example. www.farecast is another brilliant example. Research wants foresight....

Two research buzz words this taps into:

- crowdsourcing
- insights

Data Warehousing

2007-10-21T20:55:00.000+08:00

Recently I have been looking a great deal at data warehousing....

If we think about Netflix, Google, Amazon and the like what they do really well is to harness collaborative filtering or crowdsource to use the right lexicon. This builds upon Weinbergers ideas of the Third Order of Order where we can expand our creativity and intellectual power through the ability to cut data streams in new ways andhence extract new meaning and value from events, data and information.

Can we do this with research? Research always follows marketing.

SIXySampling

2007-10-21T20:52:00.000+08:00

When it comes to sampling we need to think about a number of things. And perhaps there are two things which are not often discussed that go beyond quotas, randomisation, databases, profiling, sample and all of the usual jargon....

- outsource de-duplication to ensure the same panelist doesn't complete the same survey from two different sample sources

- some balancing of the sample from the database. Without this it is difficult to make results replicable and robust

SIXteen ten / ten SIXteen

2007-10-15T09:33:00.000+08:00

Panel Quality equals research quality? Is that 100% true?

Is all (on-line) research panel research?

If you provide a long questionnaire or an inadequate questionnaire does your panel quality impact the quality of the end data in it's entirety? Do we need to revise our thinking to adopt this, not just say 'yes'?

Can the layout of the questionnaire impact the end data as much as the panel itself?

Does this way of thinking require organisational and commercial adaptations?

Four And Two

2007-10-09T18:49:00.000+08:00

Welcome to the second release.

Even with the control mechanisms on a panel the fact is that the end data is not always perfect. key lesson - great panel does not equal great data. Still with me?

Many of us have mechanisms to remove people who complete surveys too quickly. Some of us enforce it. The fact is that an automated mechanism is good but artificial intelligence cannot pick up all of the obvious poor data provided (for whatever reason). So we need the human visual edit - wow there go some of my efficiencies!

See you soon....

In Between Five and Seven

2007-09-23T14:21:00.000+08:00

For the next six weeks I will be revealing some ideas and key notes in the run up to the end of October.

- One of the things that we also refer to on panel recruitment is quality is multi-sourcing. Great. How many panels really de-duplicate? And I mean more than an automated de-dup? You just cannot take a western model and apply it to the East. In Japan and China up to 50% of joins are duplicate. Now you see why this is so important

- Recruitment. Why do we get so hung up on research only? Sure there are good arguments about contamination of results. But in the future if we only recruit for surveys only who will be relevant and who will provide good data quality?

See you soon....

Dragonair Observations

2007-09-15T16:02:00.000+08:00

These days I think on planes. And CX is great. And this is an achievement in itself since I really don't like flying. So I had the following provocations come to mind:

- does quality not stem from what we are interested in?
- how do we use social communities to add value to our existing applications?
- why do we see panels as a pool of 'managed' people when we can actually excite them with contests and intelligent provocative questioning?
- how do we integrate implicit thinking into our applications?

and lastly - why does anyone need to travel first class from Shanghai to Hong Kong? Answers on a blog please.

Quality (again)

2007-09-02T16:04:00.000+08:00

How will we 'define' quality in the future? Right now it's still stuck in the permission paradigm - how many? It's wide open

Research 2.0

2007-09-02T15:50:00.000+08:00

Everyone is focused on FaceBook. Sure.

But participation or conversational web gets us back to what research was supposed to be all about. Listening to voices. Is it more than that?

I want a participation architecture, a participant approach and additional leveraged brainpower. That's what it is all about. See more on each of these as we get closer to the end of the year....

Standardisation

2007-09-02T15:48:00.000+08:00

Can standardisation and industry adopted practice be applied when we are dealing with humans? Where is any differentiation going to come from? Can you actually standardise something that involves humans that are outside of your 'control'?

Quality

2007-09-02T15:47:00.000+08:00

Does panel quality equal quality?

Slap ME

2007-08-24T17:29:00.001+08:00

Business is about buying and selling

Buying and selling is about conversation

Markets are conversations

Research is about conversations

Yet when we talk about panels we talk about lab rats, permission, slapping people if they don't do as we want, are too silly, or dare to be bored and answer dishonestly.

But it's engagement that really counts. That's the key to quality. So let's change our discourse. Let's change the 'panel' or the 'sample management'.

See you in Orlando....

October

2007-08-19T07:56:00.000+08:00

I may see you at the Orlando Conference of ESOMAR in October. I look forward to it. I have been waiting until I had something to say to an industry convention....

Election

2007-07-17T09:22:00.000+08:00

What would an Election look like in a web 2.0 world? What would 'democracy' look like? Given technological and societal shifts do we need to update our thinking on this? Are we outdated and living the Baby Boomer definition? Is it relevant like it once was?

I still want to do this. See you at a point in the future....

WestSide

2007-07-11T11:50:00.000+08:00

Check it: http://www.oreilly.com/

Keeping Watch

2007-07-09T10:59:00.000+08:00

....2.0 And all that.

It seems that the world has become carried away with this web 2.0 thing. And I do recall saying on this Blog that we need to be careful that we don't trump something up (for various different reasons!) which has always been around anyway in terms of the intention of the internet platform and its usage.

However, it doesn't matter if it has a name or not. Or what the name is. The fact is that something is changing and we need to think about this.

I noted that Wikipedia which is a good barometer for web 2.0 has no entry for Research 2.0! Is it that research hasn't got a point of view on this? Are we just lazy? Are we just behind the times? Stuck in our ivory towers of research 'representation' and insight discourse? Rise up!

I could write the entry (or at least start it in participation with you - for I know that you the reader gets this otherwise you wouldn't be reading this) but this is more fun! I can watch on the sidelines how this develops....

See you on the top tier of the stand looking on! I hope it's not the Wimbledon stand as we will get wet....Did you see that?!

Arabian Knights

2007-07-01T16:01:00.000+08:00

Hello,

I have been away for a while. I can only apologise for my lack of blogging. Thanks for sticking with me. I always try to provide thoughts and perspectives from my (very) twisted brain:

- Why is NPD research always transactional and tactical? Test a concept. Here are 50 ideas. Test the proposition, pricing and volume? Do markets really work like that? Do we not need something dialogue based as well which can listen to trends and have the benefit of being truly strategic. Surely that is not a question?

- Why do we always talk about on-line research and panels only? Are panels the only thing that dictate the quality of the research? Is there such a thing as a super respondent?

- What is the risk profile of your business? Can you identify the likely risks to your business in the next (say) three years, prioritise them and plan a course of mitigating and pro-active action? Isn't that what research is supposed to be rather than a social commentary?

Free Prize Inside....

2007-05-30T09:50:00.000+08:00

....I am just back from Bangkok and the fresh(er) air has re-ignited my creative thinking.

Some more rifts for you....

- How do we make a panel / community remarkable from its inception? (I just said it again!)

- Why do we always focus on panels as the ultimate source of Interactive quality (Tell me about your panel management) when the truth is that this restricts us to arguments and discourses about panel size, activities, response rates and number of surveys. Are those really the only important metrics? It isn't the panel that's important per se, it's what it delivers that matters. And that's high quality data - and to do that we need stronger protocols on data quality, checking, questionnaire quality platforms and so on. Let's move the game on....I don't want to hear about my panel is better than yours anymore....It's no more the whole picture than my engine of my car is bigger or better than yours

- Using location based awareness technology can we not track where people have been in a pathway? Is this not opening many opportunities and potential to mash even with google earth?

- Why is so much panel contact restricted to e-mail? Is that not limiting?....

Some Perspectives For the Day....

2007-05-18T08:35:00.000+08:00

Why are panels built in a particular way and then marketed differently? Surely it is making the panel remarkable in the first place that drives the marketing>? How would you do that?

How do we leverage our office space further to drive awareness, credibility and TOM amongst panelists, potential panelists and clients?

What frameworks can we use to move forwards? Go to the edge of the envelope? Where we are now at the centre and drive outwards. It's the only way to go forwards

If we want people to come around to our way of thinking we must enable them to see the inevitable conclusion of their own paradigm. For example, Interactive research.

....And then: When we want people to adopt our way of thinking we must enable them to own the idea. Why do people always need to own to adopt?

Patently Obvious

2007-05-15T16:43:00.000+08:00

I saw today that Microsoft has issued a dossier of cases where open source has violated its patents and intellectual property rights.

And this will be an increasing trend across industries as mass collaboration platforms and movements create a realistic alternative to proprietary code.

And research is unlikely to escape this. Indeed since research is by its nature exploratory, creative, art, some science and subjective the phenomenon could impact us all greatly.

umm....

Adaptive Disconnects

2007-05-08T15:10:00.000+08:00

I was reading the other day and I came across this really neat term. It seems to describe so much of my life. And I am sure your life. And everyone's lives.

It basically encapsulates any moment or period when you seem to have a different discourse or world view to another person. Capitalism vs communism; teenager vs parent etc etc.

The point about this is that it happens so often. And each party gets frustrated because they cannot make the other see their point of view. So much literature is about persuasion and control of communication ('the Agenda') to try and manipulate the other person (small m) in this instance.

What we need however is a bridge. Someone who can see both sides and is uniquely placed to move us forwards. Ok so there are only so many Jimmy Carter's. But these people who can move us forwards are priceless.

And for me the biggest adaptive disconnect situation is research. Trying to persuade researchers that on-line and engagement has positive advantages over the current and traditional approach. So who is the bridge? Who can move us forwards? It's that person(s) who can see all sides. That holistic perpsective that can cut through the dust and create traction. Execution.

Any Jimmy Carter's out there?

Fiji

2007-04-19T11:52:00.000+08:00

...By the way my lack of entries recently was caused by being in Fiji. Did you really think that I would be on the internet in Fiji? Geez am I that sad?

What is This Thing Called Research?

2007-04-19T09:32:00.000+08:00

In 1957 Alan Chalmers wrote a seminal book called "What Is This Thing Called Science?" In the work he challenges some of our deeply held and unchallenged beliefs about science and demonstrates where some of the theories we have have come from in a valuable critique.

My point here is that Research is based upon scientific principles - the belief that observation(s) and subsequent testing of hypotheses will lead to linear progress and understanding. Both Qualitative and Quantitative (especially) stem from these schools. Remember in the 1960's we had the quantitative revolution - the belief that all human behaviour was predictable, rational and capable of being modeled.

In a world where we are becoming closer together and hence more conscious of the differences between ourselves observation is taking on a greater role in advancing us forwards - look at the weight given today to immersion and ethnography for example.

But do we only understand and explain through scientific observation? Many of the greatest philosophies and advances have come from going beyond this scientific discourse and utilising other alternative ways to understand the world.

And in a world where engagement is here for the near future at least and we are all striving for the next big thing(s) do we not need to have some non-scientific ways of looking at things? Will that not make the white coat brigade even stronger?

A Big Deal About A Big Fish

2007-03-30T14:30:00.000+08:00

Microsoft today unveiled the Deepfish browser for mobile devices.

Frankly I find this of great interest in research terms. Ok I have been banging on for a while about how panels and research will utilise mobile phone technology very soon and location based awareness is the key app for insight. If we have a mobile browser which is stable and potentially a seemless adoption experience from what we see in the current browser space then we have potential for growth.

New insights, mobile surveys, immediate recall, location based awareness and tracking. Mash ups with Google Earth. Reaching the social networkers. Reaching the mobile generation.

Immersion

2007-03-29T17:22:00.000+08:00

There is a lot of focus these days on the use of customer immersion (a specific phenotype of ethnographic work).

The panel is the way to deliver just this type of solution. And that solution is a key part of the open source NPD process as we move forwards.

Recruit and pinpoint customer
Connect to customer
Immerse with the customer
Fuse needs and frustrations across a SWIS (See What I See) platform
Engage multiple disciplines
Shake, aggregate, cook, and away you go. A beautiful cake. But not any old Cake. A cake which has three facets to its creation:

A new market definition
A product and service upgrade
A change in process & business model

Now that is a innovative cake borne out of engagement. Does it taste any good? Sure and it is a unique sensory experience.

I am off. Want to taste it now....

I Would Do Anything For ( ). But I Won't Do That

2007-03-19T18:07:00.000+08:00

As researchers we have a certain amount of knowledge. Some of us more than others. But we don't know what we don't know. And this is the same in all professions and business services.

So my point is surely the way to deliver insights is to open up to other disciplines. And the panel infrastructure provides a large part of the approach to doing that. Ok, so involving marketers or advertising executives is hardly new. But what about engineers? Graphic Designers? IT? Linguists? Philosophers? Sociologists? Isn't that fusion? Could we fail not to move forwards on our thinking?>

And the song? Oh that was just something in my head at the time. Remember it..?

Stop The Press: Market Votality Creates Upside Conditions

2007-03-18T18:32:00.000+08:00

That got your attention.

One of the things that the Wisdom of Crowds make us understand is that in market research we should be concerned about a) our sample sizes and b) the quality of the aggregation of the wisdom from that sample. Well ok, maybe nothing new.

But in Interactive qualitative this is new. The idea that we can use a larger sample size is worth looking at because it is now possible technologically and financially. So when we do NPD work is this not something to consider?

Now we go a step further. If we have respondents and the end-client build a virtual stock market on the ideas that are generated would this not lead to a good level of prediction? Would it not be engaging for the participants and also draw the client in to the process?

Let's buy that disruptive technology or idea stock now. The market opens 9am tomorrow morning....

Jazzy Jeff

2007-03-15T17:37:00.000+08:00

In the old world a hierarchy set the direction. A team had a clear structure, a beginning and an end. In the new world we can only accelerate engagement through collaboration where the tone and the direction is set and the network produces the ideas and the creation. For mutual benefit.

The old world was military style. The new world is the Jazz ensemble.

See you in New Orleans...

It's On-Line. It is Convenient...

2007-03-13T23:02:00.000+08:00

Sorry I have been sick recently. Now the Mac is back...

Old panels were about permission. Sign people up (as many as possible and even be less than honest as to how many have signed up in some cases). The tried and trusted argument was that the permission from panelists led to a greater anticipation of the survey contact leading to a) higher response rates and b) more attention from the panelists. This led to better data quality...

This is simple to gain traction with when the alternative is interruption telephone.

No wonder that we are bogged down with arguments about SOI / DOI / TOI (Sorry - for those who really have been somewhere on Mars recently - double opt in). But what in reality does DOI mean anyway? Ok permission is a tick box. Done and dusted. But is that equal to an engaged participant?

Let's move to appointments with our permission panelists. Higher response rates and shorter field times. Better engagement. Co-creation. Can I e-mail you on Tuesday morning with your new survey if I have one available?

See you in 30 minutes. I have a survey to complete. No calling please.

Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales

2007-02-24T15:42:00.000+08:00

When I was growing up a Sanger was something you ate in a sandwich and Wales was something I saw on my morning run. How strange that these two things should come back to play such a prominent role in the future of our lives.

These two guys invented Wikipedia.

Based on these principles I am reading an excellent book called 'Wikinomics' published by Portfolio. Don Tapscott demonstrates how mass collaboration is the game changer built around three current phenomenon:

- web 2.0 technologies
- the rise of the net generation G, X and Y
- the globalisation of capitalism and diminution of US / Euro dominance

These three forces have converged (by no accident I may add) to create the conditions for what he calls a Perfect Storm. This will have far reaching consequences for our industries and lives.

The question is in such a storm can we see clearly enough to navigate ourselves to a more profitable future?...

David's Back. Back Again...

2007-02-23T11:37:00.000+08:00

I have learnt a great deal from David Siegel over the years. His books have always been far sighted. I share his link with you. http://www.dsiegel.com/

You Can't Win. It is More Virtual Than You Can Possibly Imagine

2007-02-20T10:23:00.000+08:00

...in addition I see that returning heroes from war are being exposed to virtual scenes to help them deal with PTSD.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6375097.stm

Maybe this is all not so far fetched. It just requires the mathematics and algorithm to make it happen. Well, I suppose that everything comes down to maths in the end...

By Order of the (Virtual) Management

2007-02-19T17:16:00.000+08:00

I was reading a car magazine today from the UK. I told you that cars were my sucker punch. Anyway, there was an article in there about how virtual reality plays a part in designing cars, prototypes and even crash test simulations. This got me thinking..how can we use virtual reality in research?

Ok, Second Life blah blah, deng deng, etc etc. What about virtual simulations of our recommendations - kind of like a turbocharged modeling DSS Simulator. Then I thought ok what about virtual people? Virtual respondents? Surely some of human reaction to concepts is based on modeling? As such we can learn from real people and build virtual panels..yes really virtual - clearly applicable only for some kinds of objectives.

Is this possible? In the 1960's the quantitative revolution was based upon human behaviour being predictable and rational (like Weber or Christaller's models). I am not suggesting that. But I am thinking that if we build in appropriate frameworks of thought we can build virtual panels based upon the experience of real human actions and attitudes.

Can that happen? I think that it will, even though it is easy to knock down. Maybe this is what all of the human tests and observations are about on LOST!

Gong Xi Fa Cai / Kung Hei Fat Choi

2007-02-16T16:43:00.000+08:00

Happy Chinese New Year to you. Happy Lunar New Year to our friends in Korea.

This is the year of the Pig. The year when big healthy babies are born.

The Year when big quality panels, which engage, come to life. The Year we have been waiting for.

OK Fun Over. EaSt.OrIeNtAtIoN

2007-02-15T10:30:00.000+08:00

Forgive me for indulging. In this Blog I constantly talk about trying to provide a more global perspective - not the US, UK Anglo Saxon view of the world that we always hear (not that there is anything wrong with that view, it is just that it is limiting to our progress). And yes, the irony of the statement above is not lost on me...

Have a look at this article to see what I mean:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2007/tc20070129_681556.htm

I am reading more and more about Wimax. I should also declare that the author has held shares in Unwired, an Australian Wimax pioneer since 2004.

Stop the Press

2007-02-15T10:20:00.000+08:00

Please allow me to indulge in an unusual way. My wonderful wife now has a professional Blog as well. Good for her...

Das Capital

2007-02-12T09:21:00.000+08:00

Marx once wrote that Socialism would result only after three previous modes of accumulation. That there was a linear progression to our societies which would result in a glorious (and socialist) end game.

So today I read on the BBC that China faces a 'Wifeless Future', because of the one-child policies legacy. This set me thinking....

The internet doesn't work like that. There is no linear evolution. China will skip DSL/ADSL and move direct to Wireless Broadband / Wi/Fi. (Africa no doubt will go to the next epoch direct). This not only creates competitive advantages across regions with the latest technology it also creates research opportunities. Sure a bigger internet pipe means more rich content, but it is more than that. Location Based Awareness is the killer app - In Japan 56% are already picking up Wi-Fi and that is personal accounts, not ones that you piggy back from someone else's!

I just cannot stop thinking about what this all means....

Intention View

2007-02-11T09:47:00.000+08:00

I read an interesting article this morning.

The Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Germany have discovered a technique to read a persons brain and predict intentions in certain areas. It could be possible to identify how a person will act before they do.

It is done by a process called "multivariate pattern recognition". A program can recognise brain activity which is associated with specific thoughts and learns over time to detect patterns.

Now clearly we must be careful along how far we make predictions in this area (or are you reading my mind already). But with so many scientists behind this (not to mention military applications and resourcing) it is only a matter of time before the Wisdom of Crowds takes this to the next level and develops some commercial applications - probably starting with a Firefox style Stealth Bomber piloted by thought implosion.

What about research? Once you can start to have such a predicted model where could you go? Where is the revenue? What are the advantages? What other data can you combine in business intelligence?

It will happen. Are you with me or against me? (Sorry hate that term).

Eye Scan

2007-02-07T17:23:00.000+08:00

If I now use my finger print to ident myself for access to a laptop how soon until we do this to access a secure website? Like for example validating my identity for an on-line survey? Could this happen? I won't need VoIP to do it then....

SWIS

2007-02-03T13:06:00.000+08:00

See What I see? I have been reading some stuff about this. It is very interesting. I believe in this concept and its future potential...

Error Messages or Screwed Up Messages?....

2007-01-21T15:07:00.000+08:00

I am sure that you have taken many on-line surveys. I am sure that you have seen some good ones, some fun ones and yes, many shockers...

What nearly all surveys have in common is the Error Message - you know that text at the top of the screen (usually in a red colour as though I got something wrong at school), which says 'Please enter X again. Your response is invalid' OR worse still 'You have made an incorrect response. Go back'.

There are many examples. The point is where did the fun go? Why treat a humble respondent or survey participant like they are an idiot? I swear that sometimes the error message itself is wrong!

So I say let's use every communication to engage people. And let's treat them with respect. Why do they not use your name in the error messages? The next time someone sends me a survey and this happens I am going to let the programmer and researcher have it! Does anyone REALLY get it???

IP Sourcing

2007-01-19T08:38:00.000+08:00

I am talking about intellectual property (like technology and ideas) and not internet protocol here.

How many patents and IP's are sitting out there that could benefit the research industry? How many have been discarded by other organisations as not creating (shareholder) value yet could in the research industry - especially as we become more technologically focussed.

See you at the IP auction...I am the guy losing his hair fast - cannot miss me.

2007. In it.

2007-01-18T22:35:00.000+08:00

Apologies for my lack of blog entries recently. I am so busy executing the 2007 plan that I have little time to Blog.

I am creating a Flickr type environment to bring the portal to life and shine the spotlight on the panelist. Oh and bring presentations to life. No small matter then.

But I am not giving it all away. Watch this space...

Recent Tragic Events

2007-01-16T16:30:00.000+08:00

The recent earthquake off the coast of Japan which caused a smaller Tsunami reminded us all of the power of our earth and how small we really are. Similarly the earthquake in Taiwan recently was appalling.

That earthquake in Taiwan affected the undersea internet cable. It has really upset much of Asia Pacific connectivity - in China operations were affected by this.

So the issue is - how long before we surpass the cables? There are just too many things that could happen which can throw our connectivity downwards. Wireless alternatives could clearly help in the future when such tragedies strike....

Four Pillars of Interactive

2007-01-14T16:14:00.000+08:00

Utilising a number of frameworks I have read recently I can see that an Interactive world can deliver the following:

- diversity
- aggregation
- collaboration
- independence

And you know the funny thing is that these four values are exactly those which can deliver better data and insights if leveraged correctly. For example:

- more key research visionaries work with the same data = collaboration
- larger sample sizes and more dispersed sampling = diversity

Now maybe I have it wrong but to me I believe that if we utilise these principles we will deliver better research and more valuable insights

And that is what Interactive can deliver. You seeing the Blue Ocean yet?..

Shine the Spotlight on Me

2007-01-11T11:58:00.000+08:00

Lisa Johnson in her excellent book talks about the X & Y generations wanting and warming to the above concept. Clearly Flickr is one very good example of this.

Why do we not use this more in research? On-line is clearly lacking the soft values of human interaction. Who are those 'people' doing the surveys anyway?

So what about a Flickr type application in the panel - to showcase the REAL people on the panel? Use them in the final presentation (but opt-in of course) to bring qual and quant to life - this could go in so many directions.

Cathay Pacific Open University

2007-01-10T21:44:00.000+08:00

...I am still reading the CX Annual Report looking for those Open ideas and innovations. How did they become so good?....

- operational excellence
- style
- strong branding
- strong margins

Familiar traits to research?

SecondLife

2007-01-10T21:39:00.000+08:00

I see that Philips has partnered with Second Life to help drive new ideation and concept development. In combination with the panel I wonder if qualitative research could not only benefit from such thinking (which many of us have considered) - but also such a partnership?

Open University

2007-01-07T12:46:00.000+08:00

We are all looking to innovate both to survive and to grow. Of course innovation can come in many forms and in all facets of our business. In order to get the edge many of us have resorted to academia or partnerships with academia - the idea that one person or one institution can deliver the next killer app. Maybe they can. However are the chances not higher if we go Open?

Open will mean that we embrace not just academia, but also other organisations who can offer critical insights based upon their experiences. Now in market research this could of course be advertising or marketing. But what about Airlines? Finance Companies? They work in sectors where there is fierce competition, price points and margins moving ever lower and similarities in their core offer.

Perhaps this is what Open can do?

It's the Recession that We Had to Have

2007-01-05T16:00:00.000+08:00

John Major (UK Prime Minister) once said "If it is not hurting it is not working"

Paul Keating (Australian Prime Minister) once said "It is the recession that we had to have"

In both cases the recession led to significant growth after the event.

Actually this is not a political rant at all.

It is simply that in order for panels to get better and for our industry to have better panels we all need a recession. Not a recession of economics, rather a recession in our panel size through purging of those who were inactive.

Let's follow these two esteemed gentlemen (which they were regardless of your political persuasion) and take a leaf out of their book.

Open Source continued

2007-01-04T18:50:00.000+08:00

I read today in the South China Morning Post that some organisations are now placing their advertising brief and creative brief on their website for companies to react to, contribute to and wiki. That is innovation.

So as I predicted, how long before research does this? Let's not kid ourselves and bury our heads.

iRobot. myRobot

2007-01-04T18:44:00.000+08:00

Happy new Calendar year to you.

I read today that Bill Gates believes that robots will be ubiquitous at some point in the future. A robot in every home.

How do you engage with a robot? What is robot co-creation about?

Will robots and not the 'humans' take the surveys? If so, do we need to worry about honesty any more? Data quality? Fatigue?

Maybe all a bit facetious, but worth considering..

Roll on 2007

2006-12-23T13:39:00.000+08:00

At the end of each year (like you) I plan for the next. It is a time to relax and think, as opposed to stress and do! So Merry Christmas from Sydney where I have relocated for ten days or so. I had forgotten just how wonderful a place it was. Anyway on with the show...

What are you planning for 2007? It seems that engagement / mash-up / web-services co-creation / customer voice / inside innovation are the obvious 2007 currency. It is just a question of what form(s) that takes. This is a truly exciting time to be a researcher - has there ever been a better time? There is no greater buzz than self-expression.

Three things that I am playing with are:

- co-support panels like the concept used by CISCO (mention them a lot) for customer self-help

- wikiresearch (Watch this space)

- the Wisdom of Crowds (more to follow)

Hats Off to Ray

2006-12-17T16:48:00.000+08:00

I was once lucky enough to listen to Ray Poynter - many years ago. He said something very profound about Cookies. Well Ray - hopefully I can reciprocate and give you some Cookies in return!

Thank you. Here is his Blog http://thefutureplace.typepad.com/

(That presentation was in Milton Keynes in the UK. Interesting place).

It's Not What You Say Or Even Think. It is What You Do that Matters

2006-12-17T16:34:00.000+08:00

Market research and marketing are undergoing change. No big deal in saying that. Personally I am always fascinated by changes - or more to the point how to accelerate them. It doesn't matter what you do there will always be 15% who really go for it, 70% who are not going for it yet and 15% who claim they will never do it.

Anyone can talk a great game - but it is the behaviour that matters. What do people actually do? And does that embrace the change? We all have our own reasons for pushing or pulling on something: career enhancement, money, challenge, boredom, to be trendy, an easier life - maybe even all of these in some matrix combination?

The secret I think is to identify that top 15% and proactively drive them. That will lead to some osmosis. You need to demonstrate to them either:

- the ability to see the light
- the feeling of the heat

CISCO drive any new initiative by delivering through the framework of Leadership, Competence, Technology and Governance. Once these blocks are in place you can drive it through. That has always stuck with me.

Then the considerations are micro - what is the advantage to me of the new initiative in my day to day level work?

And you can be sure that this is potentially the biggest issue for business as we move forwards. Change will accelerate and those who can LEAD change will win. You must take people with you - only then can you accelerate change.

Anyway - I am off to accelerate Engagement...

We 3 Kings.....

2006-12-12T13:13:00.000+08:00

Seasons Greetings to you. And all that. May your god go with you as the great and now departed Dave Allen used to say.

I was reading this article today, based on the current Nextgen Web Marketing Conference in 2006.

Are we at internet 3.0? 2.0? 2.5? Geez, who knows? Does it really mean anything anyway? Surely these terms come about precisely because we restricted our initial views of what the internet (presumably 1.0) was all about in the first place?

3.0 /2.5 is supposed to stand for device independent websites, mass-customisation of websites, greater customer relevance and interaction as well as collaboration.

Didn't Peppers & Rogers write about this in a One-to-One future many years ago? Haven't many organisations been doing some of this anyway for some time? Isn't customer orientation what early pioneers of the internet had in mind, so we are simply executing this in a new way?

It's great that we are moving on...but where was our starting point? Are we not restricting our horizons?

It seems that this commentary on 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 in some way mimics the technology shift of 2G, 3G, 4G and so on. Well that would make sense. Let's use those terms to describe our internet where a new technology or capability is involved - but not when we simply have a new trendy concept - which has always been around anyway.

Open Source is Coming

2006-12-11T21:54:00.000+08:00

It is self evident today that everyone talks about a participatory web - insight 2.0, conversations, engagement, storytelling, storypushing, dialogue. Should I go on?

Well as technology shifts and our cultural and social appraisals also shift of how we use and apply that same technology it seems obvious to me that the last great leap forwards comes from uniting minds - the principle that many people are better than one (or even just a few people).

So today I saw that a new search engine is launching called ChaCha. A human powered search engine that has the intelligence of the human mind allied to the database reach of technology. That is a hard to match combination.

So we have Wikipedia for knowledge....

We have ChaCha for search....

When will we have ParticipantFusion for marketing research....?

Heh - even the US and Russia can work together now. I saw it on the NASA tracker for the Space Shuttle - that means any of us can work together!

Mapping

2006-12-10T18:38:00.000+08:00

One of the key advances of the enlightenment project was mapping the world. Cartography became a science and a geometric view of the world steadily gave birth to uniformities of time and space.

So now that we have mapped our earth we can also map space. We can even map the orbit of the International Space Station and the Space Shuttle orbiterhttp://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/tracking/index.html .

If we can do this how easy will it be to track human locations? And once we track locations using the "Buddy Beacon" or whatever it becomes the consequences will be large.

Will there be such a thing as a fugitive any more? Do we need to do day after recall? Can we get feedback and dialogue at specific locations and points in a process? Yes, you would have to say that from a marketing (and research) perspective this is almost a given. Don't call us - we will call you. I just left the store and I have something to say.....reverse research.

Consumer = Prosumer.
Respondent = Correspondent......

The Panel Obsession

2006-12-09T16:24:00.000+08:00

..These days we seem to focus on the panel so much. The way to deliver the research. This has allowed many new players to come to the market who are not from a research background. Of course the low barriers to entry and the nature of the internet make this a very attractive option.

However can the panel concept only be optimised through research knowledge?

What about quality of sampling?
What about the questionnaire on-line design?
What about the survey itself (it is a website after all). Does that require research optimisation?
What about data quality optimisation?
What about the insights themselves?
What about the way the panel is managed from a research perspective?

I don't see ISO looking at these things? I don't see ESOMAR looking at these things? Yet the truth is that a panel has little intrinsic value in its own right. It's what you do with it that adds value .

I say let's stop obsessing on recruitment and panels in isolation from the way the panel is used and the quality of research thinking that goes into building, maintaining and using it.

Is that dialectical thinking? Maybe Marx does have a place!

Saturday...Time to Think

2006-12-09T16:16:00.000+08:00

..I read in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning that the Australian Parliament is considering a Report which would enable speeches to have visual representation by using PowerPoint platforms.

Now whilst this might be considered bringing the 'debate' out of the stone age, I wonder if they have considered leaping beyond .ppt and going to Flash, Avatars and the like in their speech reporting?

Would this take the soundbyte to new heights? Would the PR spin doctors not have further food to throw with? It would be more engaging for sure - but let's not adopt a linear way of thinking like Marx - then leapfrog .ppt and go one better to ensure real democracy.

Would this not allow us to reconnect with the Youth?

The Art of Performance

2006-12-08T11:38:00.000+08:00

..Sometimes one just has to shut up, listen and take notice. (Actually we don't do enough of this in my opinion).

I read this on Seth's Blog today. Long been one of my inspirations. It provides a summary of performance and of what engagement is all about

Read it - "I would be a lousy pilot".

Thank you Seth.

Enough said.

InternetIZE Your Enterprise

2006-12-07T14:14:00.000+08:00

Ok, so we have internet research using on-line panels. We have on-line surveys. We even have on-line discussion now (finally after years of naysaying).

How else can we use the internet? Well some of them are in this blog. But I had some other perspectives.

- These days we talk about dissemination of reports through client portals and the like. Great! However this is not very Interactive is it? Is there any wonder that numerous esteemed colleagues are debating about their use and uptake except in certain exceptional circumstances? The point is I think that aside from content we tend to have no reason to view these reports. Now in our world design counts for a great deal. Maybe if we made the reports more Interactive people would actually use them far more? Sure content is King, but design is the Prince. Let's not forget that. So we have internet research, internet panel, internet portal AND internet format reports and presentations - .ppt show me the way to go home!

- Will we ever have a virtual interviewer? The advantages of this could be quite neat in terms of engagement, but we would need to be careful since one of the advantages of the internet is the anonymity (or at least perception)

- Using the internet to capture real sound in real - time and immediate availability to client desktop. Is that not more diagnostic? So simple and yet so impactful.

More later....

I Bet Mine is Bigger Than Yours

2006-12-05T22:05:00.000+08:00

When people talk about panels they always end up talking about or referring to panel size as some metric of the health of the panel:

My panel is better because it is bigger
We are further ahead - ours is bigger...

Since when has size really made much difference? Don't get me wrong size can help in quality sampling, but let's be honest there are very few people out there who really know sampling theory and practice. Indeed, many of the new panels are proud to say that they are not run by researchers! Says it all I think...

But size is just one factor. You don't judge a cricket team only by its batting line up (sorry England) you must look at the component parts like fielding, team spirit, bowling and so on. And so with panels you must look at effective response rates, core-cooperators, panel composition, survey demand, tracking frequency and so on.

Maybe this is all too hard - it's just easier to outsource...

Dynamic Korea

2006-12-04T15:00:00.000+08:00

Last week I was in Korea. Korea is always a challenge. If you want to visit a place that typifies how the world is changing right now this is the place. The energy, the drive, the dynamism is everywhere.

Just a couple of thoughts for today:

- I have seen a few articles recently about Virtual panels . Now in internet terms this is a great concept. Expand the scope of your panel through partnerships and affiliates so that you can deliver well nigh on almost anything in sample terms. However let's take a closer look. Who are the partners? Are there validations of representation? So in research terms there are some key questions to be considered. Was this not what ESOMAR best practice was designed to do? Did we not sign up for these things?

- We have TRUSTe for Privacy. What do we have for panel transparency? Yes we have a code that declares 'I have a managed panel too!' Isn't this like asking a lobby to self-regulate? What auditing mechanism do we actually have? In reality.

- This next entry is taken from Christensen's ideas on innovation. Whilst we all take our panels into new directions - communities, engagement, virtual and so on what happens to those client's who just want the stock interviews and data collection? Our technological achievements and thinking will certainly outpace the client demand - will there be tiered offerings in this regard to counter that inherent contradiction?

Linus Torvalds

2006-11-26T14:02:00.000+08:00

Linus gave us Linux! Now this entry could be about how the open-source movement is morally right compared to the Microsoft empire. Well, actually I don't believe that and I don't really have a strong opinion on it - so I won't go there.

Anyone who reads this Blog will hopefully get a sense that I am personally fascinated by ideas and creation. Winston Churchill once said that the "Future Empires are Empires of the Mind. " I believe that.

I want to look at Linus' ideas again because I believe that they have great power in our world of research and marketing. Of course our individual brains are becoming sharper and more skilled over time. The reality is however that everybody is more clever than somebody - no matter who they are.

The open source movement created so much precisely because so many people contributed. Well if we look at insights or web 2.0 I believe that the same principles can be harnessed. For example:

- give respondents (participants in the new world) an individual incentive to create better ideas. Put them in contact with each other and let them fly in order to create better marketing solutions
- collect information and debrand it. Create an infrastructure where consultants and experts from many fields can provide perspectives and opinions on where to take the marketing solutions based on that data. The reward is kudos and incentives. Imagine the competitive and ego streak to drive a better solution! With so many disciplines falling over themselves to have the best ideas and 'solutions' imagine the fusion of techniques.

Would this type of business model not create? That is peer to peer production in a marketing and research framework. I guess I didn't think so long since my last entry!

Go East. Young Man

2006-11-25T14:46:00.000+08:00

If so much of the technology in the world that is fuelling our economies and promises to deliver gains in the marketing and research industry is from the Far East, why are we still basing our core knowledge on this outside of these markets?...

Go to the Customer Voice

2006-11-25T14:27:00.000+08:00

It is a truism to say that we must always create value in the customer's eyes. We must always seek new insights and ways of understanding the marketplace that can deliver value to their business and their stakeholders - whether that be engagement, insights, analytics, quality, being the n01 or no2 in each market (thanks Jack) or even creating the 'Blue Ocean' - whatever that actually is...

Well have we ever thought about what our customer's (the client's themselves) get from our competition? Ok, maybe they get lower prices, faster service and so on. But do these things do what research is there for? Research doesn't exist to be fast per se, or provide a lower cost per se. That is part of the basis of our competition. No, it exists to enable people to have better insights which deliver better decisions. Read profitability or revenue - whatever the financial indicator at stake is.

So do client's really care about our competitive sector? That there are competitive panels? Competitive ideas? Competitive quality claims? They just want that stated above. Perhaps it is time for us to acknowledge this and find new ways to work together to serve our clients? That is not about a monopoly or a cartel - no. It is about finding ways to work together to serve our client's interets AND achieve mutual gains. I am not talking about industry bodies or accreditations.

I am going to keep playing with this idea. I believe in it...

The Lucky Generation

2006-11-21T20:07:00.000+08:00

G'day!

In this Blog I always try to give you non-western perspectives which is important (Ok, well at least through the cultural lenses of a Brit, cum Aussie, cum Hong Konger). Many advances are coming from these markets.

I read the other day that there will soon be a population in the workforce who has known nothing but connections - mobile phones, the internet and so on. So if we think we are dynamic now, wait until this generation comes through and delivers their perspective by new applications and techniques.

So today I am in Vietnam. Actually I narrowly missed George Bush at the APEC Conference. Here is a country where e-mail penetration has nearly doubled in the past two years. 58% of the total population is aged 30 or below.

The spatial geographies are changing. Is this the Lucky Generation coming through?...Keep an eye on these markets because they will make some others look not so advanced in a very short space of time. They think in new and exciting ways. (Read my note on offshoring vs expertise reaching).

Trust Your Gut Feelings?

2006-11-19T16:33:00.000+08:00

I am grateful to M&P Tarlow in 'Digital Aboriginal' (Warner Books) for these ideas. I thought that I would share them with you.

According to researchers the heart can create thoughts independent of the brain, so the concept of 'Listen to your heart' has some meaning. Indeed, when those researchers measured the electromagnetic field of the body, 90% of the energy flows from the heart to the brain, only 10% vice-versa.

So it seems that the heart creates thoughts and feelings that transmit an emotional interpretation to our 'rational' brain. So thought just doesn't come from the brain.

Here is the bottom line: As researchers we have long known that we are not rational beings. Indeed we have had to create some clever techniques to understand our emotional needs and drivers for decision making. But that emotion still stems from the brain - who is understanding or measuring (if it can be done) that from the heart?

How would we do it? Can it be done? Unlocking 90%....Can dialogue do it?

This is Investment

2006-11-18T15:42:00.000+08:00

How do we build the Business to Business panel? The truth is that the usual tactics for engagement are just not good enough.

A few years back I had an idea of myShare panel, where the incentives for each survey were pooled and invested in certain funds. The panel participant could then have some fun on this and see their investment grow or decline!

So today I was reading about how customers become partners in our businesses. (This seems so obvious as to be a waste of my keyboard imprints, but there you go). If we really mean this then what about executing the concept?

The Barcelona football club is run by the Executive and the Fans - there is investment. What about a panel? Why not allow the panel members to be fully invested in some way? Would this not lead to engagement? Would they be walking advocates then?

If you want to build communities of the future then this has to be the way - full investment means a genuine care - and that means engagement.

Yes, that is a challenge, but you didn't think this was going to be easy did you?