A research agency is doing research and is perceived to be credible; but their insights & recommended ideas are usually bordering obviousness and general knowledge! Research agencies have always had the credentials but sometimes they miss ideas and insights.
A creative person is developing ideas but many a times his ideas are set aside under the pretext that they are ‘wild’, ‘super niche’ or too ‘edgy’ and not based on real consumer insightCreatives have the ideas but sometimes they are seen missing the insights
A planner is trying to turn the obviousness of the research agencies findings into insights, ideas & executable consumer knowledge.Planners are supposed to have both (at least the insights) but they do not have research agency credentials to stake a claim to consumer knowledge
Given this from the above three, Research Agencies are best placed to own insights because they have the consumer credentials and the research processes. What they need now are some people who can think creatively and generate ideas as well - people who are at the cusp of ‘logic-analysis’ on one side and ‘magic-creativity’ on the other. There is a huge opportunity in deploying resources to own this cusp of creativity and analysis.
With these people in, the last three slides (before the thank you slide) in research presentations would start looking much more actionable that they ever did in the past.
5 comments:
Saurabh - what you say is reflective of what is happening - there is more being expected from research than what is pure reportage and that is a positive change for the discipline and its practioners.
Though there is another reality that counter this -
While more is expected from research post execution - there is very little room for involvement pre execution - at the design and conceptualization stage. Many a times research agencies are told to do X groups in Y centers in 2 days and deliver results yesterday. I suppose it stems from lack of time at hand and the belief that 'i know my brand best' which by the end of the research phase changes to 'tell me what to do with my brand'
I've had the good fortune of working for a while with clients who consider the research agency as one of the many stakeholders involved with their brand/ products - not just a vendor and that model makes one world of a difference.
I do agree with Reshma on this point. We hardly involve research agencies during the research design, conceptualizing and even at defining what exactly we're looking for. Client said do research, servicing approaches the planning, sometimes do the briefing themselves without consulting and in the end it boils down to cost per group per city and not the outcome. I feel this involvement makes a huge difference and often throws more light to the tunnel. Hope things start changing sooner.
Personally, I have come across few moderators/researchers who have often presented fantastic creative ideas worth spending some time upon. Hey but isn't that a creative domain ;-)
Reshma/Poor thanks for the views. I understand and appreciate where you are coming from.
Few things:
1. 'Researchers do research' (and not ideate) is a paradigm built over a period of time. In our own business interests and to take the research services up the value ladder we perhaps need to invest in value adds.
2. Unactionable/uninspiring output over a period of time has actually downgraded research agencies in their ability to reach the higher ups in decision-making. Thus we are left interacting with young managers who have logistics ("I have to finish this research by xyz.. date to present it to boss..") as their priority over quality of execution.
3. Poor, I believe ideas and insights are a discipline not a domain/department. There is a lot that everyone can do.
4. The counter thought to this creative approach to research could be question of 'objectivity'. If research agencies give ideas they are being passionate about a line of thinking but classically research is supposed to be dispassionate.
But of what value is a thought or line of thinking without any feeling to back it?!
It depends on the research agency. There are a huge number of small research agencies which have cropped-up all over. These cater perfectly to the client's myopic "cost per group per city" approach.
In such situations the planners have to struggle to get something worthwhile out.
But recently we met AC nielsen for a research for Electrolux. Even in the very first meeting, they spoke like planners. It was a refreshing experience.
The client wanted to test a certain proposition to see if it would be a strong enough driver for purchase.
ACN instantly explained the concept of 'creating needs' among conusumers through communication. They said that one must therefore not base action purely on quali. research findings.
Ofcourse, after we received a proposal from them, the project has been put on hold owing to the high cost. *sigh*
We may end-up resorting to a regular research agency now.
I fully agree with saurabh .I think to an extent agencies are also to be blamed. We usually tend to use research primarily to support our point of view rather than looking at their contributions for newer insights. And ofcourse we are always constrained by budgets and deadlines which makes things worser ( like the one pooja has mentioned ).
But another thing which i guess the research agency needs to figure out quickly is the quality of respondents which they recruit. I worked with a leading research agency recently for a qualitative study and trust me the recruits for the GD's and DI's were pathetic. I had to call off most of the groups and interviews because the hiring was not all upto the mark.
Post a Comment