The credibility problem
•
15 likes•1,529 views
A talk on the challenges facing market research, especially qualitative research, in an era of ROI. Is qual actually helping us make better decisions? Or has it failed to keep up with the world around it?
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to The credibility problem
Similar to The credibility problem (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The credibility problem
- 1. 11.09.07 presented to the market research & intelligence association qualitative research day jason oke vp strategic planning leo burnett canada the credibility problem why respect for research is eroding, and why we need to win it back
- 4. ROI
- 5. does qual provide its own ROI?
- 9. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 media has changed marketing has changed has market research?
- 11. qual hasn’t kept up with culture
- 12. getting the chance to give feedback to a company used to be interesting.
- 20. we know communications needs to engage and provide value in order to be effective… what about research?
- 28. qual hasn’t kept up with science
- 31. we ask people questions they can’t answer
- 32. “ the consumer does not behave as they say, they do not say what they think and they do not think what they feel” - david ogilvy
- 46. we’re not vigilant enough in ensuring research is used properly
- 47. research is often far too literal: we report what people say , rather than what they mean
- 51. “ let the consumer decide.”
- 53. we all know better. we know when we’re doing ‘bad’ research.
- 56. we all need to work together to stick up for better research the people who can make a difference are in this room
- 57. we need to say “no” more often it’s not rocket science “… we can’t ask that question, and here’s why”
- 60. we are bad at explaining & describing what we want what we like like and why we do things
- 61. we need to get beyond self-reported descriptions & explanations
- 66. and hang in there, baby
- 67. thanks. jason.oke @ leoburnett.ca http://www.leoburnettblog.com
Editor's Notes
- I know the conventional wisdom is that advertising agencies hate research. This is not a presentation about an advertising agency bashing research. Actually, I hate the knee-jerk reaction some agency people have against research. I think research is one of the most important things we do – helps us get to brilliant insights, see things differently, make solid creative better, stopped bad ideas from getting too far. It’s arguably the most crucial part of what we do. We’re all under pressure to justify our decisions, find breakthrough insights, and prove ROI. But for something so crucial, here’s my question: how often do we actually talk about what we’re doing, how we do it, what questions we ask, and how we expect people to be able to give us answers? The answer is we don't. We default to “doing it the same way we did it last year.” Using the same questionnaire, using the same norms. And so on. As a strategic planner, part of my job is thinking about how people make decisions, studying how the brain works, looking at best research practices from around the world. There's a lot of new evidence – from psychology, neurology, and market research itself – that shows some of the ways we do research don't actually give us the answers we think they do. A lot of debate is starting to happen, with some shocking conclusions. But sadly, little of this debate is reaching into marketing departments and agencies yet – our debate seems to be limited to the occasional “focus groups suck” article. So today we’re going to look deeper at this most important part of our business, talk about some of the work that’s going on, challenge some conventional wisdom, provoke a discussion of how we do things, and the best ways to involve our consumers in that process. But first, I want to tell you about a chair.