Without undertaking market research, the strategic communication professional is leaving stones unturned, not devising the most informed and therefore best possible communication strategy and potentially encouraging organisations to expend valuable resources in a counter-productive manner that will not deliver best possible ROI.

Quelle horreur!

To help us understand why market research is a no-brainer for best practice communication, leading Australian market researcher Adrian Goldsmith* comments in this post on issues such as the ethical dimension of market research, ROI and the relevance of market research to reputation evaluation. In the previous post, Adrian provided insights into the general salience of market research and its value to organisations.

As in any article on strategic communication, it’s important that we first focus on an issue of importance to all of us: death. Adrian explains…

“I recall one study that was unusual from the outset and provided some profoundly interesting results. It involved a mausoleum that was part of a cemetery owned by one of the local councils in Melbourne. They wanted to know whether they should use some land in the cemetery to create burial plots or build a bigger mausoleum – essential to determine whether the current burial practices of mausoleum users would continue into the future with sufficient consistency to warrant the investment.

So the key was to speak with first, second and third generation southern-born Italians to determine their likely behaviour. However, this needed to be done sensitively given a high degree of superstition relating to speaking about death and burial practices.

The research needed to talk in general terms about the practice, but also obtain a robust assessment of behaviour. The approach was carefully planned, beautifully executed and provide a sound basis for decision-making. The end result – a larger mausoleum, well patronised and financially successful too!”

Are there any areas in particular where you think it’s likely to be of no use to undertake market research?

“Research is only of value when you are able to act on the findings – make a change, keep doing the same thing, vary, evolve, respond. If you have no intention of responding to the feedback or insight you’re wasting your money and the time of those involved at every level.

There are also some situations where the answer cannot be obtained by asking the punters – they are ill-equipped or unable to provide sufficient information or insight to enable the right decision to be reached. In these situations, it is probably better to run an internal workshop with the key people from within the organisation involved than go to the wider audience.

Again, in recent times, I’ve spent a great deal of time discussing when research is and isn’t a worthwhile investment – it’s an important discussion to have given the increasing cost and complexity of doing good research.”

Some communicators and marketers tend to go more for the gut-feel approach rather than a rigourous market research approach. Is there a time when gut feel alone is the right way to go?

“Gut-feel really only works when the decision is so obvious and so grounded in past experience that there is no risk in the decision – that the decision essentially makes itself!

Even so, I’ve had situations where the speed of the decision required a pure gut approach from the client. In these situations, I counselled the client to ask around to get a consensus of opinion from as wide a range of people as possible – to essential validate by convenient methods in lieu of formal research.”

ROI in marketing, but probably more so in the arena in diverse but related fields of public relations/reputation management/brand equity is critically important, yet quite problematic. What value does market research offer in this sphere? Can reputation and the quality of relationships with key stakeholders (e.g. industry peers, government, and consumer ‘influencers’) be accurately measured and can a business value be attached?

“Without doubt, reputation and relationship quality can be measured in absolute terms and in the context of return on investment.

Identifying what the underlying constructs of a relationship are and their differential role in delivering connection and relationship strength / quality is an acknowledged and powerful extension of simple customer satisfaction measurement. It takes the concept of measurement to another level by identifying the most profitable activities to focus on and the payoff from doing so.

A defined value can be put to their current behaviour and the impact of improvements or changes in the behaviour coming about through better relationships. This highlights the best use of (typically) scarce resources.”

Do you ever counsel caution to communicators when using the information/insights that market research has identified? Can you explain?

“Recently, far more of my time was spent discussing the merits of research, its potential to assist (in most situations, but not all), when it is inappropriate to use research and how best to optimise the investment (not cost) that is required to conduct and deliver great research.

Even so, it is particularly important that communicators make appropriate use of information and insights when preparing materials and approaches for the publics they are seeking to engage. From simple presentation of the most appropriate information to appropriate interpretation of results, to translation of insights into messages – a great deal of the modern researcher’s time is spent ‘bedding down’ the findings to ensure they hit the mark.

Beyond being a requirement of the industry’s Code of Professional Behaviour, successful use of research in the public domain encourages others to make use of research in the future.”

Have you ever had concerns that your market research findings have been used for less than ethical purposes or in a less than ethical way?

“As a research professional, you are bound by the industry’s Code of Professional Behaviour which has provisions relating to the use of research findings in the public domain. Put simply, we have a responsibility to review and sign-off on any research findings used in press releases or other public communications.

 If you suspect the potential for misuse, you are bound to raise it with the client beforehand and put in place processes to prevent it from happening.  If it comes to light afterwards that a client has misused the research two things need to happen.

The first is to communicate with the client that what they have done is contrary to the industry code and that they should not use the information that way (and seek to correct any misconception created.

The second is for the researcher to communicate with the industry body that they were unaware of the client’s actions until after they occurred.

However, we have a clear responsibility to ensure that findings are not inappropriately used within or outside client organisations (for example presenting only findings that support a position when there are clear opposing findings that are relevant to the decision or misrepresenting findings to deliberately mislead). To this end, we are often consulted in the presentation of findings, the use of research and the decisions that are to be made to ensure the client is reading it right.

Typical practices in this domain include sending files in PDF format so they can’t be tampered with, insisting on the right to review materials and just generally ‘watching over’ the client as they take the research back into the organisation.”

What have you found to be the essential differences, if any, between when marketers and public relations/strategic communication professionals utilise market research?

“In the past there has been a wide chasm between the two types of professional – exacerbated by a lack of understanding and a lack of willingness to understand each other’s perspectives and domains.

However, with the advent of closer relationships between researchers and communications professionals (brought about largely by client demands and expectations) and an aggregation of many research agencies into communications businesses, it would seem the chasm is closing and mutual understanding and respect are flowing naturally.

It’s exciting to be able to do your thing, be respected for it and to enable others to take your work and do their bit to it / with it to achieve the wider aim. This endorses the research process, the communications strategy process and the client’s faith in the professionals – all good outcomes.”

Do you think market research benefits the health of society as well as help achieve positive business outcomes? How so?

“Without doubt, the practice of market and social research delivers enormous benefit to society. Market research helps:

• save money on product / service development
• ensure the products / services customers need are developed and launched
• provide vital feedback about products / services to enable their improvement / enhancement
• ensure effective deployment of scarce resources in the public sector.

These all provide a sound return on the relatively small investment that it takes to undertake high quality research.”

What do you think about Adrian’s thoughts? What ethical issues with the generating and utilisation of market research have you encountered? Where (if ever) does ‘gut-feel’ rule over scientifically gathered market research? Have you ever hesitated over using, or not used, perfectly reasonable market research findings – why?

[The third and final instalment of the interview with Adrian will have a strong social media-relevant dimension.]

[Adrian Goldsmith has worked in the market and social research arena for nearly 20 years – four years with AGB McNair and nearly 16 years with Quantum Market Research as a principal, director and part-owner for most of this time. His primary role was in the planning and conduct of market and social research for a wide range of public and private sector clients across Australia. He spent much of his time undertaking a diverse array of studies and providing strategic advice to organisations as varied as state and federal government departments and agencies, leading financial services organisation and major events organisers. For reasons of confidentiality, the names of the organisations for which he has worked cannot be revealed. He departed Quantum in July 2009 to pursue new and different interests.

He has developed research expertise in a number of areas including reading public opinion, identifying the nature and extent of opportunities, clarifying the impact and effectiveness of communications, measuring client / stakeholder satisfaction and providing wise counsel to a vast array of organisations. He has spent the majority of his time providing timely, robust and reliable information on which organisations can make high quality decisions.]

Tweet This Post