Ask any panel supplier what his greatest problems are and he will tell you two things, the inability to get adequate samples outside urban centres, to get older aged participants and to get second tier city coverage. Secondly they will tell you they are running into problems of maintaining panels as the first signees start to drop put through lack of interest. The point many of you have missed is related to this last point. I believe the major trend that will start to be obvious to all research practitioners is that online respondents are losing interest because of a growing awareness of security and more important anonymity issues. We can see it now in declining Facebook numbers in many early usage countries. In my view the whole social media thing is going to hit a brick wall, albeit very soft and very thick, but eventually over the next ten years you will see less people willing to share where they are and who they are!

I agree that there’s nothing new about big data. It’s glorified secondary research and secondary data has been around forever. The big different is that it’s now available in real time and far more interactive than ever before. Hence, why do a survey if you can find the answer in big data.

My second observation is that there seems to be some conflict over change taking place on the client side. Despite the pleas of senior management for powerful insights delivered via compelling story telling, we find we also have to meet the needs of our traditional MR clients. And in those cozy cubicles, I would argue that a majority of client side analysts still want that 95 slide PPT deck (at least added to the appendix). I am concerned that our well meaning MR client analysts (A.K.A. gate keepers) are setting themselves up for a hasty exit to the obsolescence bin. Because if ADD top management can’t get what they want from MR, they’ll find it elsewhere.

A 2011 MREB report that was cited by Scott Christofferson in the September issue of Research World cites that only 5% of decision makers rely on market research to inform customer related decisions. I find that number appallingly low. And it makes me wonder, if decision makers have such a low regard for MR, then what are we trying to preserve? If 95% of decision makers find our work marginal at best, why would we not run full speed towards substantive change?

I do share a bit of Eileen Campbell’s cynicism but this time, I do feel the tipping point has passed and we will barely recognize our industry before the decade is out.

How many signals do we need folks? We have hard data from many sources confirming these views. It’s time to quit debating and get to work transforming our businesses.

I’m not looking for “cheap,” I’m looking for “maximum ROI.” That ROI is both in terms of dollars and time. GCS solves for both, for some situations.

Guys, don’t shoot the messengers here; the process of change can really suck. The process of irrelevance and eventual insolvency sucks even more. How many more signals do we need here?

1) The Cambiar Future of Research Study 2012 shows incontrovertibly that clients believe that we are in the middle of significant change; fully 66% of them believe that the leading supplier of research in 2020 will not be one of the existing leaders of our industry. It also shows that clients are way ahead of their suppliers in recognizing the need for change – and are embedding new approaches (DIY, social media monitoring,MROCs, big data analytics) into their routine toolboxes. Synthesis of multiple sources of information is also now embedded but, guess what? regular suppliers are not invited to this particular party! Finally, the study shows clearly why so many new entrants are coming into our field – because regular MR agencies are completely misunderstanding their clients’ needs.
2) Lenny does a lot of consulting with clients and he is hearing loud and clear not just their frustrations but also those of their bosses – which is exactly what we hear as well. we consult with client MR and CI departments and hold regular symposia with clients throughout the year and we can back up precisely what Lenny is saying. Change is being forced on MR departments by C-Suites and CMOs who need them to deliver much more with less. Accordingly, those clients need much more from their suppliers – and are not finding it.
3) It is no coincidence that the large multinationals are seeing their organic growth stall; or that mid-size, independent companies are stuck and cannot seem to grow; or that smaller, traditional research agencies are dying. Research agency death is not such great news as new companies or investment in new suppliers, but it is happening nonetheless. Our agency clients fall into three buckets: new and early stage companies that are growing like weeds; mid-size companies that realize they need to change fast; and smaller companies that are dying and realize all too late that the market has passed them by. Twice this year, our advice to these types of firm has had to be “close down”.
4) $1 billion came into the research and analytics industry last year. Aside from the money IPSOS raised to buy Synovate (not looking such a great idea right now), only $15 million went into traditional market research.

Steve and Nick, the need is to wake up now, so that you don’t wake up later and ask “how did it come to this?” This is not about change that is coming. It’s about change that is all around us right now.

http://www.webpronews.com/google-and-harris-interactive-team-up-on-self-service-market-research-2012-09

@Chris, I get everything you are saying and don’t disagree with the scientific principles behind your argument. For some types of research that is a big deal and there will be a place for that level of rigor, but for the vast majority of commercial research done today understanding the limits of the method doesn’t detract from the effectiveness of the method; we just have to understand the context. In a world of Big Data (which really hasn’t been around for many years: the concept was, but not the capability to actually harness that volume of information and apply the level of analytics needed) traditional sample theories get turned on their ears due to sheer volume and survey research no longer is the sole domain of MR. Couple that with an increasing focus on understanding the digital path to purchase, marketing ROI, social media engagement, brand tracking, emotional measurement, mass qualitative, etc.. and really much of this becomes moot. We need to adapt my friend; our clients already are.

And by the way, when Facebook and SurveyMonkey can duplicate the results of a Gallup phone study and a Rasmussen poll (which uses listed sample and is conducted via IVR) without ever weighting the data, then I’d say that the online populations IS representative of the general population, wouldn’t you?

Lastly, I have to say that since online survey research accounts for the vast majority of all research being done today (and has for several years now), lots and lots of multimillion dollar decisions have been based on that method for a long time and those brands seem to be doing fine. At Rockhopper we conducted hundreds of global studies among B2C and B2B populations, many for the banking and financial services industries, all online and that data helped propel many home run projects, including modern 3G networks.