GRBN Building Public Trust Archives - GRBN.ORG

GRBN Global Trust Survey highlights impact of Covid-19

GRBN_News — Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:00:26 +0000

WASHINGTON D.C. – June 25^th 2020

Trust in health authorities increases and trust in media and social media companies takes a hit, while there’s no real change for market research companies

New findings from the GRBN Global Trust Survey show how trust in market research companies compares with that in other sectors and, for the first time, how it has been affected by the Covid-19 crisis.

The Global Research Business Network (GRBN) has partnered with ten national research associations from across the globe and 15 corporate partners to conduct the GRBN Global Trust Survey.

The results*, published today, show that 34% of global respondents personally trust market research companies, compared to 16% not trusting. The level of trust in market research is similar to the level of trust in government, as well as to that in internet search companies such as Google and Bing.

Trust in market research is particularly strong in Latin America, ranked 2^nd out of the 15 types of organizations researched in both Brazil and Mexico, and 4^th in Peru.

On average, health authorities and local police are the most trusted out of the organisations included in the survey at 56% and 53%. Media companies, secret service organisations and social media companies sit at the bottom of the global trust table.

Impact of Covid-19

This year’s survey also provides valuable insight into how trust in different sectors has been affected by the Covid-19 health and economic emergency. In recent months, there has been no real change in the net index for trust in market research companies, but others have seen significant shifts.

Globally, trust in media companies and social media companies has been most impacted by the crisis and fallen 16% and 11% respectively. Trust in Government has dropped overall, most significantly in Brazil (-46%), Japan (-45%) and the US (-32%), but people living in Korea now think of their officials more favourably and the level has increased by 25%.

Around the world, trust in the health authorities that have been at the forefront of the pandemic, has risen by 15%.

Debrah Harding, GRBN Chair and Managing Director of MRS, comments: “As we face some of the most extraordinary times, we are looking to institutions and experts for solutions out of the crisis. It is vital that we understand how today’s challenges are affecting people’s trust in these sectors and professions. GRBN’s new research provides insight into changing attitudes and will be a useful tool as countries look to develop solutions in response to Covid-19.”

Andrew Cannon, Executive Director of GRBN, comments: “It is heartening to see that trust in market research companies, as well as in many other types of organizations, has not been negatively impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. However, there is certainly room for improvement for our sector, and work to be done when it comes to building the public’s trust in what we do for the benefit of consumers as well as society more generally. GRBN looks forward to working with regional and national associations, as week as individual market research companies across the globe to further build that trust.”

The full GRBN Global Trust Survey report is available to download here.

Thanking our partners

We would like to take this opportunity to thank all our national association and corporate partners without whose participation and support this initiative would not be possible.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION PARTNERS

CORPORATE PARTNERS

* The results cited in this press release are based on the responses of 4964 people aged 18+ living in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Korea, Japan, Mexico, Peru, the UK and the USA, who completed the online survey between the 27^th April and the 7^th May. The responses have been weighted to reflect the 18+ year old population in each country in terms of age, sex and region.

Ends

Notes to Editors

About GRBN

Global Research Business Network connects 45 research associations and over 3500 research businesses on six continents.
More than US$25 billion in annual research revenues (turnover) are generated by these businesses.
GRBN’s mission is to promote and advance the business of research by developing and supporting strong autonomous national research associations.

Twitter: @grbn_org

For further information, please contact:

Andrew Cannon

GRBN

+358 (0)50 5226922

andrew.cannon@grbn.org

The post GRBN Global Trust Survey highlights impact of Covid-19 appeared first on GRBN.ORG.

Do Market Researchers Want to be Trusted?

GRBN_News — Thu, 25 Jun 2020 10:08:36 +0000

John is the head of Customer Experience (CX) for a large hotel chain. Jennifer is the CMO. John shares his latest report with Jennifer that shows 40% of their customers thought their stay was enjoyable. Is Jennifer pleased with that report, or is she appalled? Probably the latter. But for some reason, we in market research (MR) seem to be satisfied with this same low level of positive CX among the many millions of respondents we engage each year.

According to the latest GRBN Global Trust Survey, just 40% say they find the research they participate in to be enjoyable. Wait, what??

There’s more. Right now, as highlighted in the same global research, almost half the people say they aren’t sure if they trust MR (45%). Another 16% flat-out don’t trust MR. As an industry meant to distill what people say, do, and think into meaningful and accurate insights, should we be concerned that only a third of the people trust us?

Let’s assume we do want to engender a higher level of trust. How does CX fit into this equation? The answer is that CX drives trust. And trust drives participation – especially participation for the right reasons. And broad participation from people that want to contribute improves data quality – which improves trust. See where this is going?

Tackling trust as an issue is hard. Where does one even begin? You got it – by improving our CX. GRBN’s research shows a direct relationship between CX and trust. If we can improve the CX we provide to our respondents and participants, a broader level of trust is sure to follow.

	Trust MR	Not Sure	Don’t Trust MR
Positive CX	59%	36%	25%
Negative CX	11%	22%	32%

Let me recommend a great resource on how to get started on improving CX – GRBN’s participant engagement Handbook, ENGAGE 2.0 – a guide with 30 expert tips for improving the research participant user experience.

Customer experience can be defined as the customer’s perceptions, opinions, and feelings developed through the cumulative effect of their interactions with a brand or supplier.

So it will take time to change opinions that have perhaps been formed over a long period of time during which people have become accustomed to a certain level of engagement (or lack thereof). It will take effort. But there’s no doubt that as an industry, we have ways and means to accomplish the goal. The question is whether we have the will. I hope so.

Dave Rothstein

RTi Research

The post Do Market Researchers Want to be Trusted? appeared first on GRBN.ORG.

This House believes that it does matter a lot that the public has lost trust in Market Research

GRBN_News — Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:41:05 +0000

Last month at the Insights Association’s Leadership Conference in San Diego, I had the honour of teaming up with Dave Carruthers from Voxpopme to propose this motion to the House in this Oxford-style debate, with Debbie Schlesinger from the Schlesinger Group and Kerry Hecht from Echo Qualitative Project Support our worthy opponents. Grab a cup of coffee and take 5 minutes to see if my opening and and closing arguments can convince you that this issue does matter a lot to everyone who has ‘skin in the game’ when it comes to the future of our sector.

Opening Argument

This House believes that it does matter a lot that the public has lost trust in Market Research There is no doubt we are living in a low trust world. The 2018 Edelman TRUST BAROMETER reveals a world of stagnant distrust. Our own research backs this up… not only is trust in government low, but it’s also low in media, and especially social media companies. And trust matters hugely to democratic societies. I’m a huge Bruce Springsteen fan. Do we have any other Bruce Springsteen fans in the room? Here are the opening lyrics from a Bruce Springsteen song, Magic, released in 2007. ‘I got a coin in your palm, I can make it disappear. I got a card up my sleeve, name it and I’ll pull it out your ear.’ Bruce explains ‘the song is not about magic, but about illusion, about living in a time when anything that is true can be made to seem a lie, and anything that is lie can be made to seem true’. To me this is the end of the argument… if the Boss says trust matters, it matters! But not all of you might be Bruce Tramps so, let me elaborate. We have now lived for at least 10 years in this world full of illusions… no wonder we have lost trust in institutions, in experts…

The fact is that market research is being dragged down into this world of distrust whether we like it or not.

To the general public Cambridge Analytica is no doubt a market research company. Our latest research shows that only one in five people trust market research companies, less in some countries. Better than social media companies, but not by much. So, the fact is that the public’s trust in us is low whether we like it or not. The key question is does it matter? I want you to close your eyes and imagine the future… ‘Imagine a world where there is no public trust in market research companies. Low response rates, fake respondents… kids in Bangladesh, criminals in Venezuela, bots… respondents only motivated by the promise of a two dollar an hour financial reward for their time… a world of low quality data, poor insights, wrong decisions, loss of trust amongst decision-makers, extinction of client side Insights functions, proliferating use of DIY tools by amateurs, more poor insights, more wrong decisions, even less trust..’ Now open your eyes. Look the person sitting next to you in the eye and one of you say”

‘I don’t give a damn about trust in market research’.

How did that make you feel? How did it make you feel saying those words? Hearing those words? OK, but to fully understand whether trust matters or not, we need to understand the drivers of trust. Sure, as we mentioned earlier, there are external factors influencing the amount of trust people have in market research companies, but I would argue that we are also shooting ourselves in the foot. Our data shows three keys reasons for a lack of trust: 1) People don’t perceive the value of spending their time participating in research 2) We collect a lot of data on people, including sensitive personal data. People don’t understand why we need this data and what we do with it, and therefore don’t find the collection and use of their personal data by market research companies as appropriate. 3) We too often give people a bad experience when they do participate. And this is a critical mistake. Think about your own personal relationships… do you trust people who treat you badly when you engage with them? Over the past couple of years, we have done a lot of research on research into the research participant user experience. Here is how the research experience can feel to them: Again, close your eyes and listen: ‘Hello, would you like to earn a dollar? That’s great! It’s going to take you 20 minutes of your time. OK? Great, Well, it might take a bit longer, as we are looking for a needle in a haystack you might not qualify for a survey straightaway. In fact, it might well take you another 40 minutes to finally pass through a screener, so you’ll get your dollar after an hour. That’s OK? Great! Oh, by the way, when trying to qualify for a survey, we’ll ask you your age, sex and lots of other personal information multiple times, but don’t worry, your data’s safe with us. We won’t waste your time telling you why we want you to participate, what value your participation will have for consumers and citizens just like you. That’s OK isn’t, you don’t care about that, right? Oh, by the way, the survey probably won’t work on your smartphone, but if it does, it will be a horrible experience, but hey you’re going to get your dollar, so I’m sure your OK with that? Right? Good, but I have to warn you, that you still might not get your dollar. We’ve inserted some trick questions at the end of survey to catch you out. Also, if you get bored or frustrated with the horrible experience you’re getting and decide to speed through the survey, we’ll also kick you out. Oh, and if you go too slow, your quota might be full, so we won’t need your data after all and we’ll kick you out then too. But hey, you want that dollar, right? And if you think you can game our system before we game you, then welcome… it’s game on.’ Now open your eyes. Look at the person sitting next to you and one of you say:

‘I don’t give a damn about trust in market research’.

How did that make you feel? How did it make you feel saying those words? Hearing those words? Not good I imagine.

Closing argument

I’m going to share with you two horror stories and one fairy tale, which I hope, if you still have any doubts at all, will convince you that trust in market research matters. Horror story number one: I was told a story where a company was making a large investment decision involving a number of different business functions. The company had a very decentralized approach to Insights, so both the innovation director and marketing director had both done their own research and come to the planning meeting with conflicting survey data. The CEO asked angrily how can we trust surveys to inform our decision? Horror story number 2: The CX VP in another large company got hold of the questionnaire the CI department was using for their tracking study. She was shocked and said she that this is not the way we talk to our customers. The CI head tried to argue that the survey was blind and that the sponsor not disclosed. The CX VP repeated that this is not the way we talk to our customers full stop, and she threatened to shut down the work the CI was doing if they did not implement the company’s agreed way of talking to customers.

Finally, the fairy tale

May I ask you to close your eyes one last time? Imagine a world where there is a high level of trust in market research… people perceive the value of participating to them as consumers and citizens and want to participate at least now and again. When they do they are given a great experience… they know who the survey is for and the value their participation will have to consumers like them… the survey they take on their smart phone is short and engaging. They are thanked at the end of the survey in a video by the client, and interesting and useful information is shared back with them, in addition to receiving a fair incentive. The agency gets quality data quickly… the client gets great insights, the decision-makers makes the best decision they can and are satisfied with the ROI on the investment in Insights. Their trust in market research continues to grow and grow… Now open your eyes. Look at the person sitting next to you and one of you say:

‘I give a HUGE damn about trust in market research’

and that my esteemed colleagues is why this house believes that it matters that we rebuild the trust the general public has in market research.

Did I convince you that trust matters? If so, please get in touch to find out how me can best work together to improve the level of trust people have in what we do. Andrew Cannon GRBN

The post This House believes that it does matter a lot that the public has lost trust in Market Research appeared first on GRBN.ORG.

The Virtuous Trust Circle – Why Retaining Trust Among Decision-Makers Requires Building Trust Among The General Public

GRBN_News — Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:14:58 +0000

If you read our burning platform post, you will know that we believe that, as a sector, we need to work harder than ever to convince decision-makers to trust us, or we risk losing that trust. There are a number of actions we as individuals, companies and industry bodies need to take to ensure that trust remains strong. One of those key actions is to continue to deliver accurate data and insights decision-makers can rely on. To do that we need high data quality, and for that we need willing participants, which takes up back to trust. We have the choice to make this virtuous trust cycle a reality or we can bury our heads in the sand and allow the negative distrust cycle to continue to grow in strength. Going back or standing still are not options, by the way, so the choice is ours… upwards or downwards?

Participant Engagement Is The First Step on the road To building Trust

We all want to give clients great data and insights, which help them make better decisions. And in today’s fast-spinning world, we need to do that even more quickly and more cost-effectively than ever. Unfortunately, in our desire to serve our clients, we are often guilty of either consciously, or sub-consciously, forgetting about the research participant and their needs; in the extreme case, seeing them as data points, a raw material from which we can extract value and discard when no longer useful. In a less obnoxious case, seeing them as passive respondents, who will ‘do anything for a buck’. Rarely do we see them as fellow human-beings – our friends, our children, our parents, ourselves – which if we did, would dramatically change the way we interact with research participants.

Have we as a sector collectively abandoned the concept of ‘do under others, aS YOU…’?

Whilst, there definitely should be a sufficient moral argument for treating people like valuable human-beings when they agree to participate in research, my experiences in running the GRBN Participant Engagement Initiative over the last few years has taught me that this is unfortunately not the case… at least not sufficient enough to significantly change how we as a sector treat participants*. ‘Fortunately’ there are other arguments for caring about participants as people and treating them with respect. The first is data quality. There is more than enough evidence to show the impact of participant engagement on data quality… better response and completion rates, more accurate responses, better qualitative insights… So, if you care about data quality, then you should care about participant engagement. Secondly, we know that bad experiences negatively impact end-clients and their brands, and we should definitely care about that.

Willing Participants are our life-blood

People, who are willing to participate in research are the life-blood for that long-term sustainability of our sector, and unfortunately today, participation rates are falling lower and lower. Our research tells us that there are many reasons for this, some which we cannot impact and some which we can. Rather than complain about the ones we cannot impact, let’s focus our energy on those we can. And the first one we need to focus on is participant engagement, on giving people a great user experience when they do agree to participate in research. If we cannot do that, if we do not respect people, then we cannot expect them to respect or trust us. The pool of people who are willing to participate will become reduced to those who are willing to except their time being abused for a small financial incentive. Are these the people, who you want informing your insights and your clients’ decisions? I think not.

if you want to help your clients make better decisions, start at the beginning, start at participant engagement

Get in touch to find out how we can help you do just that. * It is not all doom and gloom. This year, I have met many individuals, who are taking actions every day to improve participant engagement, and I’m convinced that there are many more out there, whom I have not yet have the privilege of meeting. If you are one those, I would love to hear from you. Andrew Cannon GRBn

The post The Virtuous Trust Circle – Why Retaining Trust Among Decision-Makers Requires Building Trust Among The General Public appeared first on GRBN.ORG.

Trust in Market Research – Our Burning Platform Issue?

GRBN_News — Fri, 14 Dec 2018 06:51:41 +0000

Our data shows that our sector has a trust problem. We argue that whilst today it is becoming a problem for data quality, tomorrow it will also become a problem for decision-maker confidence in what we do, unless we take decisive action. And this is a huge risk for our sector, our Achilles heal, for if we lose that confidence, in a world of multiple data-sources, we risk losing everything. “Over-dramatic”, I hear you say… “Impossible, of course decision-makers trust us, we are the experts”, I hear you cry. But I ask you to stop a minute and think about this. In a world of fake news, which anything which is a lie can be made to look like the truth, and anything which is the truth can be made to look like a lie, do you really think we are immune to this? Our latest Trust Survey data suggests we are not.

Lessons from Nokia

Read on and I will share with you a true story of how there are already cracks appearing in decision-maker trust. Those of you that know me well, know that I live in Finland, the home of Nokia. The fall of Nokia is a sad story, which has similarities to ours in my opinion; namely denial, apathy, over-confidence, short-sightedness. The Nokia story did not end well because they did not act even when the changes in their competitive environment were there for e everyone to see. They did not try and react until their platform was ideed burning as the CEO at the time said… and it was too late. Let this not be legacy for our industry. Maybe you can see the first flames licking at the base of our platform, maybe you can smell the smoke? I know I can. So let’s act now, before it is too late to regain decision-maker confidence. Here is the story I was recently told: ‘Their company was making a large investment decision involving a number of different business functions. The company had a very decentralized approach to Insights, so both the Innovation Director and Marketing Director had done their own research and came to the planning meeting with conflicting survey data and conflicting recommendations. The CEO sent them away asking angrily how could they trust market research to inform their decision?’ It doesn’t matter that this was a result of the company’s own poor processes, what matters is that the top management decision-makers in that company now have a lower level of trust in what we do. If you care about this and want to help us put out the flames, please get in touch. We would love to hear from you. Andrew Cannon GRBN

The post Trust in Market Research – Our Burning Platform Issue? appeared first on GRBN.ORG.

The GRBN 2018 Trust Survey gets under way: Many thanks to our partners!

GRBN_News — Mon, 04 Jun 2018 13:20:47 +0000

We are excited that the 2018 GRBN Trust Survey will be going into field next week! We’re conducting the survey in 8 countries – Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Mexico, New Zealand, the UK and the USA – and would like to thank all our partners on this project. Without these companies’ generous contributions, we would not be able to undertake this important research, so a big thank you goes out to all involved.

Do we still live in a hostile trust environment?

Back in 2016 we found that the general public had a relatively low level of trust in market research companies, both in general, and specifically in relation to protecting their personal data. Market research companies were not alone, however, in this respect, with people distrusting many different types of organizations, including their government in many countries. Fast-forward two years, and our hypothesis is that the trust environment is still a hostile one, with the rise of fake news and the recent Facebook / Cambridge Analytica scandal amongst others adding fuel to the fire. We are keen to understand how the general public perceives market research companies in today’s environment, compared to other types of organizations, in particular compared to media and social media companies.

Does trust matter?

If trust in market research companies turns out to be still at a low level, companies can of course choose to ignore this fact and build business models based upon other premises. We believe, however, that market research companies, as well as the clients they serve, and not forgetting the people who participate in research, will all fare better if end clients, research agencies, data collectors, technology companies and industry bodies all work together to build a relationship with the general public based on trust. If we do not, we risk the pool of people willing to participate in research shrinking to such a degree that our whole sector will be undermined.

Participant Experience as the foundation of trust

We cannot hope to have a trust relationship with the general public if we give people a poor experience when they participate in research. And unfortunately, too often research participants are getting a poor experience when they do participate… surveys which are perceived as boring / irrelevant / overly long, and not suitable for mobile.

Increasing awareness of the trust problem

Once we have the data collected and analysed, we’ll be pushing out the learnings from the survey via our Global Insights newsletter, as well as through our partners’ communication channels. We will also be presenting the findings at conferences across the globe over the coming months, so watch this space.

Driving change together

In addition to creating awareness, we will continue to strive to create change. One way we are doing this is through the recently launched ENGAGE MR program, which enables end clients, research agencies, technology companies and data collectors alike to deliver great experiences to research participants. The first group of eight companies are already participating in the program, and we are looking for companies to join the second group, which will kick off after the summer. Please get in touch to find out more about how you can become part of the building public trust solution.

The post The GRBN 2018 Trust Survey gets under way: Many thanks to our partners! appeared first on GRBN.ORG.

3 Questions You Should Be Asking Your Data Provider, But Probably Aren’t

GRBN_News — Tue, 02 May 2017 07:08:31 +0000

I’ve heard it said in many corners that the Market Research industry is in a state of transition and transformation. That’s true, though I’d also argue that’s really always the case if we are doing things right. That aside, I see many firms trying new things and exploring new types of research. At the same time, however, I find it curious that there seems to be a growing lack of concern for and dearth of knowledge about research fundamentals, specifically who is participating in research and where they come from.

“There seems to be a growing lack of concern for research fundamentals”

Thus, I think it’s worth taking a step back and thinking about three important questions to ask your data provider(s). Before we dive in, it’s worth pointing out that the world of sample providers is more complex than it used to be. You have river sample or intercept providers who fish for participants online in a number of ways, aggregators or distributors who sell sample and hook into various sample sources without owning any of them, panel companies who own and manage their data sources, and some that don’t neatly fall into any of these categories. No matter where you get your sample, you should be asking… 1. Where do people come from? Are people coming from the river, meaning that they may be “fished” (no, not catfished) from an online source, whereby you don’t know much about them and once they are surveyed and put back into the stream they are unlikely to be caught again? Or are they sourced from a panel whereby, to continue the metaphor, they can be fished out of a discrete pond where they are tagged and can be found again if need be? Participants from these discrete ponds add a level of comfort for researchers as they are vetted and typically thought to be of higher quality. But you shouldn’t check your curiosity at the door at this point. It is worth asking your provider how they recruit people. How do people make it into the pond? Panels should be meticulously managed and maintained by implementing consistent recruitment methodology from a variety of sources. Variety in recruitment is key, as you don’t want your participants to come from a single, specific source, one that lacks diversity. 2. Who are these people? The more you know about who you are reaching, the better off you are. Thinking of how you source research participants, the depth to which they are profiled allows for more accurate, efficient, and quicker targeting while reducing the need to screen for everything. A well-maintained profiling database can also power impactful data appends. So, ask about profiling methodology, what areas relevant to your research they are profiled on, and how this data can be used to conduct smarter research. 3. What else? Let’s be honest, I could have given you 5 more questions, but I’m taking the easy way out here and placing the burden on you now. Well, it may not be a burden to researchers as I’m just asking you to be inquisitive – as should be your nature. Just as you ask questions about your data, ask questions about where it comes from. You’re not going to capture everything you need to know by asking the two questions above, but it’s a start. You may want to also ask about quality control measures, variations in recruitment methodology across time, and panel/non-panel source blending. But I think the most important thing is for you, or perhaps someone you know, to think critically and ask questions. Roddy Knowles, Director, Product and Research Methodology Research Now

The post 3 Questions You Should Be Asking Your Data Provider, But Probably Aren’t appeared first on GRBN.ORG.

Survey Participants: The Polar Ice Caps of Market Research

GRBN_News — Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:00:52 +0000

In partnership with my esteemed colleagues, I had the fortunate opportunity of developing one of the industry’s first online panels, The Harris Poll Online. Since then, I have built hundreds of panels. Mothers, gamers, business professionals, mortgage brokers, teens, high income earners, GLBTers, physicians and the list goes on. I’ve recruited every audience you can imagine. With all this in mind, I have some ideas about panels and the research ecosystem that may be hard for you to hear. Sit down, grab an ice-cold beverage and buckle up. I’m going to serve you the hard truth. I’m not doing this to win or lose friends. My goal is laser-focused. I want to see this industry survive. I want to see research budgets increase, and marketers around the world to rely on our space for trusted, reliable insights for the long-term. Let’s kick-off the conversation with a story that I think will crystalize the survey participant discussion perfectly. Several years ago, a company that will remain unnamed, proclaimed a bold and controversial marketing message, “Panel is dead.” At the time, my COO and other senior members of the team were outraged. “How could ‘company X’ say such a thing?!” As a result, the bold and brazen voice was silenced and our leadership relegated this firm to the penalty box. In reality, panel wasn’t dead in the real sense. After all, the number of panels in the industry were increasing at an exponential rate. When I started in the early 2000s, there were only a couple of sample companies. In 2017, there are over 60 sample companies listed in Greenbook and I believe this number only scratches the surface. Indeed, panel is not dead, but… panel is very sick. Deathbed sick. Now hold on… let me explain before you demote me to the penalty box. It is not unusual to hear industry bloggers and conference speakers discuss “declining response rates” or “participant burden,” but we have to ask ourselves the question, “Do we really care?” The short answer? ”No.” Most of the industry thinks of participants as a commodity – an infinite resource that will always be available for our use. Plainly put: participants are the polar ice caps of Market Research. We know they are important, but we aren’t doing much to reverse the damage of our daily abuse. Of course, we talk a LOT about the impact of long surveys, shrinking incentive budgets, hostage-taking routers, and price compression. However, at the end of the day, nothing is changing. As a sampling professional, I feel constant pressure to reduce my pricing to compete with what I call “faux sampling companies.” These are companies that pretend to be sampling experts. Unfortunately, under the covers they are nothing more than online traffic pushers. Rain collectors with no real experience or heritage in Market Research. The market has been flooded with these types of companies over the last five years. As a sample buyer, clients must feel overwhelmed and confused by their options. These faux samplers can herd large flocks of online traffic and they know just enough MR vernacular to be dangerous. While their ability to access online traffic is impressive, we all know that sampling is much more than “driving traffic.” Let me be clear, sampling experts can develop and replicate complex sample frames which yield representative results; traffic pushers do not. I have to look at the bigger picture and focus on longevity and quality. “Don’t get caught up in the short-term competition,” I frequently tell myself. I have to admit, I wasn’t so strong in the past. My former CFO and board would come to me and demand savings. I would do my best to explain the long-term impacts of short-term thinking, but this fell on deaf ears. Cutting incentives by 30% doesn’t make sense. Adding routing cycles in order to increase conversion kills long-term retention.This failed routing approach produces bias and burns out participants; and yet we see both real (and faux) sampling companies doing this every day. Enough is enough. The ice caps are melting, the water is rising and most sampling companies are drowning… or merging. Same thing. So, how do we fix this?How do we increase response rates? How do we increase the pool of people who will even tolerate our surveys? In order to improve our industry’s outlook, we need to make some significant changes across the entire research ecosystem. Here are some ideas to get you thinking…

Survey design is a skill. It requires training and discipline. Just because you can program a sixty-minute survey, doesn’t mean you should. Like all things in life, we must negotiate. We must serve our clients as consultants; providing advice and evidence as to why a sixty-minute survey is an irresponsible idea.
Excluding mobile participantsfrom your sample is another damaging idea. Stop doing it. If your survey isn’t mobile-friendly, you are doing it all wrong. Wake up from your desktop coma. Mobile is happening now.
We must remember that “sample” are actually people. Let me ask you this, would you take a sixty-minute survey for $1 or the equivalent in some virtual currency? Probably not. Would you enter an endless router that holds you captive for twenty minutes only to disqualify? Probably not. We have to ask ourselves these common sense questions every day. Otherwise, we will continue to operate in an alternate universe, huddled in the fetal position waiting for a life raft!
Most panels are truly broken.They are the shards of a panel manager’s broken dreams. Okay, I know what you are thinking…maybe that is touch dramatic, but it can be a depressing job at times.

While another shard of an ancient glacier breaks off into the sea, you’ve likely finished your ice-cold beverage by now. I’m sorry if this blog drained you of your life force. The truth hurts, but being in a potentially obsolete industry hurts more. We have to make changes to reverse the damage and my team is setting out to do just that. We are redefining the user engagement model. Join me in the #MRXRevolution!

The post Survey Participants: The Polar Ice Caps of Market Research appeared first on GRBN.ORG.

You get what you measure: Impact of UX on clients, as well as participants, in the spotlight

GRBN_News — Mon, 06 Mar 2017 11:50:26 +0000

In business, more often than not, the truism that you “get what you measure” tends to hold true. Therefore we wanted to make sure that metrics were at the core of the GRBN Participant Engagement Initiative in order to drive substantial positive change.

Research Participants Want To Influence Things

Our research tells us that many people participate in research out of a desire, not just to share their opinions, but to actually influence things, for example by being part of the process to create new products and services. Participating in research can also make people feel closer to the brands and companies they feel affinity to, which is particularly relevant to participants in both Brazil and China.

Knowing Who The Survey is For Provides Additional Motivation

In the same research, as many as 43% of participants stated that they would be more motivated to take a survey if they were told the name of the company or brand who was sponsoring it. This is perhaps not surprising in light of their motivations, but is nonetheless a fact often ignored by practitioners.

So, Let’s Be More Transparent And Tell Participants Who Is Behind the Research

Participants tell us that, currently, only in a minority of cases are they actually told the company or brand behind the survey. Whilst there is often good reason for not exposing the sponsor of the research at the beginning of the survey, in the majority of cases there is probably no negative impact from doing so at the end, and in fact, we believe it can have a positive impact not only on the data collector, but also on the company or brand behind the survey, under the assumption of course that the experience was a positive one. We will be testing this hypothesis over the coming months and will report back to you on the findings. If your project isn’t “top secret”, we encourage you to think about communicating something along these lines at the end of your participant interactions: “This research was conducted by xxx on behalf of yyy. We would both like to thank you for taking the time and effort to participate. Your opinion is important to us.” We know that participants value feedback, so we will also be testing the types and forms of feedback that are most appreciated.

People Think Negatively Of The Brands/Companies In The Survey When They Have A Bad Experience

Whilst many people clearly vote with their feet when they have a bad experience, i.e. they quit the survey, many also vote with their hearts and think negatively of the brands/companies in the survey. There is also the risk of negative word of mouth, which is of course amplified by social media these days. Therefore, when we conduct a bad survey, not only are we risking losing a potential future participant, we are risking negatively damaging our clients, either in general or specifically, and their brand equity.

Do People Think Positively About The Brand / Company Behind The Survey When They Have A Great Experience?

This is another hypothesis we will be testing as part of the GRBN Participant Engagement Initiative. Our hypothesis is that, in practice, many participants perceive taking a survey as a brand/company touchpoint, and if this is indeed true, then it would make sense for clients to see this in the same way. Obviously, this is not relevant for all research projects, and we are certainly not saying that we should endanger in any way the research objectives, but all things being equal, if we give participants a great experience, why shouldn’t we allow the client’s brand equity to grow as a result, for example by saying thank you on their behalf at the end of the engagement, or even better, giving them feedback on why their participation is/was so important to the client?

Hiding From A Bad Experience or Creating A Better Experience

So, what do we do if our / our client’s survey sucks from the participant’s point of view? We could go out of our way to mask the survey in the hope that the bad experience only affects the data collector / the next client, who wants that person’s opinion, in addition to the participant themselves of course. No doubt, some will read this analysis and indeed draw this conclusion. We believe, however, that this conclusion flies in the face of the current trends of transparency and customer-centricity. We believe that there is, in contrast, much to be gained by grabbing the bull by the horns and creating a better participant user experience.

You Get What You Measure: Driving Change

As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, we believe that we will get what we measure from this initiative. If we only measure the user experience itself, this will not be enough to drive the needed change in behaviour amongst end-clients and research agencies, as well as data collectors. The partners in the Participant Engagement Initiative are therefore being asked to deploy two metrics at their end of their participant engagements: 1. User experience 2. Brand impact We believe that measuring, and understanding what is driving, a positive / negative brand impact, as well as a good/bad experience, will give us the leverage needed to drive behavioural change:

When an Insights Director knows that their activities are having a positive cumulative impact on the company’s reputation / brand equity she/he has a great story to tell the CMO.
When he/she knows that their activities are having a negative cumulative impact on the company’s reputation / brand equity, she/he has something serious to sweep under the rug.

We hope that many clients will want to be in the first group and will join the initiative to work together with research agencies and data collectors to deliver better user experiences, improve participant engagement and drive up participation rates. We think this is the least we can do for the people who kindly give their time to participate in research or give access to their data. Our intention is to prove that it also makes good business sense to do so. Watch this space.

The post You get what you measure: Impact of UX on clients, as well as participants, in the spotlight appeared first on GRBN.ORG.

Special Report: Improving the online survey user experience

GRBN_News — Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:00:38 +0000

Do you believe, like us, that we need to improve the research participant user experience? If so, or even if you are unsure, please download the special report through the link at the end of this document and get concrete advice on what you can do TODAY to improve the user experience. In particular, we encourage people working in on the client-side and research agencies to take the time to read the report, since we believe participant engagement is critical to your future, even if it is not necessarily something that occupies your mind day-in-day-out, and many of the things that need to change need to happen agency and client-side, as well as “on the front line”.

Download the report

After you click “submit” the page will refresh and you can click on the button to download the report. Thank you.

Name*
First Last
Email*
Please tick the box below if you would also like to receive the GRBN News e-newsletter / other information from GRBN
- Yes, I have read the GRBN Privacy Policy and would like to receive the GRBN News e-newsletter / other information from GRBN
CAPTCHA
By pressing SUBMIT you confirm that you have read the GRBN Privacy Policy

Thanking our partners

The post Special Report: Improving the online survey user experience appeared first on GRBN.ORG.