By Edward Appleton
One question that I constantly come back to in the day-to-day business of Market Research is: if what we do is so powerful, helping companies get in touch with their consumers’ needs, wants, desires, why is it that we aren’t on a more exciting roll?
Many possible answers to that question, but here’s my take: we don’t really understand the importance of being not just efficient but being effective.
This is a critical, but not often stated difference – efficiency is all about doing something better, effectiveness is about doing things differently.
Efficiency improvements are important, no doubt – but often lead to incremental improvements. Marginal gains. This isn’t the sort of climate we live in. Capital flows to where the big wins are, where whole new markets are likely to emerge, disrupting current ways of doing things.
Where are we in MR? I’d say we’re just about at the moment where we believe we can take a whole huge chunk out of the cost of executing insights work. Maybe the quality aspect will remain a constant (perhaps an aspiration); speed of project turnaround, data collection, is certainly hugely quicker.
Is this – and this is a big question – going to make a difference? I have my doubts. We’re fighting the battles we think are what the market needs, but maybe we’re becoming myopic. My take.
1. Tactical Research adds Minimal Value
How many of the research projects you’re working on are actually evaluating something – a pack revamp, a branding option, a concept idea – that is more tactical than strategic?
I’d fear the answer is more than 50%.
If that’s true, then we have cause to worry, simply because significant value is seldom added at this stage of any project. Critical decisions have already been made. MR needs to see these projects are perhaps bread-and-butter, but the real thinking work and added value is elsewhere.
2. Methodology is Not a Goal
Many Agencies – understandably – are keen to promote methodological advances. It gives a competitive advantage, leads to (hopefully) door-opening conversations. Makes sense.
But how much actual impact are these improvements likely to make? Even disruptive propositions – lowering cost radically – are arguably more of the same, methodological changes. Do they actually make things better?
This is a shibboleth, but as long as we continue to believe that the future of MR is in methodological advancement, I fear we will be forever pushing the incremental gain line, not making any significant progress in terms of capturing more influence and value
3. Strategy is where MR belongs – but how?
An ongoing challenge of any MR project is the management of the strategic impact and perceived value. If you are working on projects that simply measure something – stakeholder satisfaction, say – adding real value with your recommended actions means being part of a strategic team that has operational responsibility, KPIs, year-end and strategic goals.
The perspective is a broader one – encompassing sales, supply chain, finance, customer service. Market research isn’t automatically involved – but in my view it should be.
We need to re-engineer our involvement levels, ditch a MR legacy positioning as peripheral, periodical. Our voice is potentially immensely powerful – but only if it’s heard by the right people (senior management) at the right time (early), and resonates because sufficiently well informed by broader business issues.
So often companies state they’re driven by the voice of the consumer, but how often is the reality different, where companies are more operationally driven, with the MR department periodically involved, plugging in data as called for? Maybe it’s this behavioral pattern, often organizationally embedded and driven by external forces, that drives part of our collective DNA (if such a thing exists) – delivering great data, but seldom capturing the full value of our activity.
The model has worked reasonably well historically, we’ve avoided the big bumps caused by economic cycles that other services industries such as advertising has gone through. However, when the data river can and does flow around the MR department, it may not be a good model for the future. We live in an age of disruption.
Each of us has to figure out which business we want to be in – the one that works in the efficiency business, focusing on marginal improvements, or the one that strives for effectiveness, impact. There may well be no middle ground.
Whichever camp you’re in, I’d suggest we’d all benefit from shouting louder, not just within the MR community, but in areas we’re hardly known. Pushing for more strategic involvement, documenting the impact.
The MR future could be bright, but it’s not a foregone conclusion. I remain optimistic.
Curious, as ever, as to others’ views.