This might provoke a little but heck, I have to say this - all interrogative qualitative research is warped!
Why?
Because in our daily lives (leave aside advertisers/marketers) we never actively think about brands, advertising, products etc. the way we are asked to in any qualitative research. This could be a focus group discussion or in-depth interview or anything else that involves direct interrogation. To top it all we are even expected to articulate our feelings just the way we are experiencing them.
But step back & think how many times do we ‘actively’ think about brands and brand preferences?
Most of the brand perceptions & preferences are subliminal. Most of the time this brand related thinking is in our subconscious.
This does not mean that we do not think or talk about brands. All it means that it is more personal. We do this with our very close friends (“I really like Nike” or “I like going to the Mango store..”) or in a spur of a moment (What bullshit, Apple ‘is’ the best computer!)
It is there but we do not actively think about it unless we are planning to buy something or there is a heated debate where someone is countering our point of view about a brand or product. In other words we are brand active around the time of purchase or in passionate discussions about the brand or discussions about things that also touch upon brands.
While on qualitative brand or advertising research, I am assuming that the people* who are responding have strong opinion about the brand or advertising (be it love or hatred). For anyone who is indifferent to the brand (even if he qualifies the Target Group test) his views are of least significance.
(More on the 'kind of respondents' we usually get for research, later)
(More on the 'kind of respondents' we usually get for research, later)
Also, most of us are not very articulate. The feelings, thoughts and perceptions about brands, advertising or products are very fuzzy. Thus expecting a clear articulation of ‘what we think we are feeling’ is at best impossible for an average respondent. I think that there is a very strong case for realigning our approach to qualitative research. To discuss brands and perceptions we need to find more meaningful opportunities and places other than hotel rooms.
What is the way out then?
To start with I suggest we stop asking and start observing – this would give us many a pointers. If we are not convinced with the validity of our observations we can always cross validate them. No, not by asking but by planting these observations or thoughts in situations where one can expect a passionate discussion. You are right there is not way to control this, but that is the nature of natural response you can’t control it. Control it and it is not natural any more.
So the next time you have a question try and get the answer without actually asking it!
3 comments:
damn, I cant stop asking questions. Can I?
Very thought provoking indeed. In fact, A.G. Lafley, P&G's executive chairperson has said that the more we try to control, the less we know of the consumer. The statement provokes us to give a long hard look at the science (or art, if you please) of understanding behaviour.
I've liked this piece very much because of the other significantly more important aspect - that of developing and trusting instinct. It's probably the biggest gift that planners can make to their client counterparts - getting "them" to trust their well honed instinct.
Am not deriding research at all. It's just that research in our own context suffers from structural problems. For instance, field operations at times are farmed out to freelancers. A sound business practice no doubt, because there is really no dearth of labour here. But freelancer recruiters are paid a pittance. Leading to duplication of respondents, with a low or abysmal level of response.
We try to alleviate these by changing sampling design - which is really only part of the answer - because in reality it only changes the billing unit (groups, triads or in-depths) for the research agency.
Having said this, there are very conscientious minds at work within the research fraternity. An agency that I know of has even created a electronic database to track respondents, and provide panels-on-demand, so to speak. It's going to take a concerted effort from the entire marketing fraternity to get ahead on this one.
Good point about rigour though - nothing to substitute instinct. Brands are often borne of anecdotal evidence + product delivery. Instinct based on years of being exposed to empirical evidence, research or otherwise, can often go beyond mere anecdotes shared in isolation.
is there some data on the success rate of instinct in marketing...LOL
Post a Comment