Over a two-part series, Edward Appleton looks at why qualitative research is undervalued and how we can improve its value perceptions.
Qualitative research is unusual in the current market research climate –
unlike much in the area of data and analytics, it’s relatively undisrupted.
Famous last words, I might hear you thinking – but bear with me.
- Plenty of qual researchers –
especially in the USA – report they’re on a high, more projects than ever,
strategic stuff outweighing the tactical. - Qual has learned to surf the digital
wave: online communities are very often exploratory and thereby qualitative tools.
So qual is part of the modern MR mainstream. - Then there’s the shift many agencies
have made from pure qual offerings to a qual-quant mix, enabling both
exploratory work and validation in one swoop. - The list of positives continues: implicit
methods, ethnographies – just to name a couple – are valid qualitative System 1
type responses to the challenges posed by Behavioural Economics. - And as documented in my recent
blogpost, qualitative research enjoys an excellent standing amongst many
leading MBA schools in the USA – at the MIT it’s even regarded as a core
competence at their Sloan School of Management.
So why – despite all
the good news – is there are a continued sense of qual being undervalued?
Undervalued in the sense that it remains a niche discipline – whilst 33% of all projects are qualitative,
according to the GRIT Report (2016 Q3/4), it only takes 14% of global market
share/spend (ESOMAR Global Market Research 2019 report).
And undervalued in the sense that DIY
is creeping in to qual – it’s a deceptively easy thing to do from an
outside perspective – chatting to a bunch of people and writing down what they
say.
Plus there’s the ongoing downward
pressure on price, accompanied by the sense that certain qual tools are commoditized.
And in the world of start-ups, who often have incentives to validate, move
quickly, the granular outputs of qual, be it digital or analogue, can be easily
trampled on.
Here’s some suggestions on why qual remains a back burner in the
data-cum-research repertoire:
“So you do Focus
Groups, right?”
One basic challenge is that qualitative research is still poorly
understood – even within clientside research teams, but certainly amongst
marketing and R&D folk. The qual repertoire has expanded massively – but perceptions
are lagging.
If qual understanding is limited – with many thinking “you do focus
groups don’t you?” – then getting stakeholders excited about its potential relevance
and impact is difficult in an age of tech-excitement and ROI.
Time for a generic PR campaign? Nice idea but……
No voice, no music.
There’s a lack of megaphones in the qual industry.
The “average” qual agency – if such a thing exists – is likely to be a
tiny operation of one or two people operating independently, and accessing a
global network of partners when needed. It’s a very fragmented segment.
That means there are no sizeable comms budgets available – nor the time
to spend on things like writing thought pieces, and perhaps most importantly
sponsorship.
Giving a talk at a conference is a recognized tool but… conference
organisers are very often dependent on sponsors to manage events profitably. If
qual doesn’t attract sponsorship – then the economics of focused qual events don’t
make sense.
The implications are severe: if Share of Voice relates to Share of
Market, which it very often does – visibility and mental availability relating tightly
to preference – then this is a big miss.
On a positive note: there are a number of qual conferences that showcase
innovative qual thinking and talent.
Qual360 events – regional and qual-focused – succeed in getting a great range of clientside voices presenting qual-based work, including case studies, on stage.
The UK annual AQR AURA event is a great celebratory twist on best practice in qual.
ESOMAR events are of course always a great forum for best practice in qual thinking – and yes, Happy Thinking People were indeed delighted to be awarded Best Presentation at the Fusion 2018 event in Dublin.
This kind of peer-group recognition is immensely valuable, even if it’s
not easily measurable.
We have received multiple subsequent invitations to present the same
piece to other research audiences across the globe. AURA/ AQR (big thanks!)
invited us to present recently at the Festival of Marketing in London, an event
attended by a staggering 4000 brand marketers.
The upcoming ESOMAR event in Madrid – Fusion 2019 will no doubt be a great place to catch some of the best global qualitative thinking.
I’m sure the QRCA is doing great stuff too….next year sees their bi-annual global event shared with the AQR rolling into to Brussels.
So there is no lack of forums for qual thinking to be shared.
But how many people find out about what was presented on stage? I imagine still too few.
Lack of Creativity?
Surely not!
So what more could be done to amplify qual voices in the absence of paid
media?
Ironically for a community that bristles with great storytellers and people
involved in the exploration of interesting emerging concepts such as
evolutionary or moral psychology, there seems to be a lack of qualitative folk looking
to raise their voices, make themselves heard, writing blogs, publishing on
YouTube.
The famous qual proselytizers – thinking here of the UK in particular –
seem to be of the receding past, and their names might not mean anything to
anyone soon.
A recent LinkedIn effort I posted asking for a list of the heroes of
qual research, brilliant qual practitioners, was a flop – no responses at all.
Modesty is a virtue with severe limitations. No more heroes anymore is a
great song, but a questionable concept.
Tune
in tomorrow to find out how qual can better use social media, up its business
acumen and get to strategy level within businesses.