• The right questions are asked in the right way.
• That sufficient masking is provided so that participants don’t know who the client or what the topic is.

The Right Questions the Right Way.

When  I write a paper screener, the assumption is that the recruiters will speak to each participant by phone (even for online studies), so my screeners are written as “interviewer-administered.”  By definition, email blasts are “self-administered” and the questions must be written differently.

I try to ask more yes/no questions vs. those requiring detailed responses.  For instance, I don’t ask someone how often they consume a product in an email screener, but rather if they consume it. Facilities/recruiters may want to get at the frequency question via email (it will save them time), but I think that’s a mistake as it allows people to over-think potential responses before they’re called for the full screener.

Also, keep in mind that recruiters are typically not trained researchers.  It’s really not their job to know the impact of question wording or the nuances of changing a question from interviewer- to self-administered.  It’s my job.

Sufficient Masking.

There are two major ways that I mask the topic/client for the email blast:

• First, I make sure respondents will go through the entire survey.  (If an online survey tool is being used, I make sure there are no points of termination and ask that the back button is disabled.)
• I then limit the number of questions to 3-5 plus a few demos.  In my opinion, the more questions asked, the harder it is to mask the topic.

*  *  *

While clients approve the full screener, I don’t feel it necessary to share the email-blast version.  I’m not changing the question intent; I’m just adding a quality-control step to the process.

On my most recent study, I had a great recruit by both facilities.  The extra step of writing the email version took me an additional 30 minutes – well worth it.   And there was an added bonus:  I became a better client for the facilities because I helped them do their job better (and saved them time)!

One final thing:  I learned from some colleagues recently that facilities may be using Craigslist to find participants.  They’re now telling facilities that Craigslist can’t be used to recruit on their studies.  Another new item I’ll be adding to my recruiter instructions right away!

How true!  Unless you knew the David and Goliath story in the early years, the symbolism wouldn’t have made sense (Apple being David and Microsoft being the monolithic Goliath).  Further, what we now take as a hallmark of simplistic design is really more than that:  the logo reinforces the approach Apple has taken with all its usability, design, and marketing efforts.  We wouldn’t need to see a logo to know something is Apple’s – that’s how well all of its parts are integrated.  Beyond this, in my view, because of its consistency and discipline in what it produces (products, ads, stores, service), Apple is the rare brand which is much more than the “sum of its parts.”

This conversation with Adam comes right on the heels of watching TED Talk’s “Julian Baggini: Is there a real you?”  where Julian put forward a rather “gestalt” notion of “self.”   He asked:

• Are “You” a thing which has all the experiences (beliefs, desires, sensations, etc.) of life OR
• Are “You” a collection of those experiences?

He gave two examples to support the latter point:

• Water cannot be water without its parts (hydrogen and oxygen).
• A wristwatch is created by its parts, but there is no thing which exists on its own called a watch.

Taking his philosophy to the extreme, there may be nothing but the unknown – parts to the N^th degree.   (What are the parts of hydrogen?  And the parts of hydrogen’s parts?  At some point, we simply don’t have all the answers.)

Nevertheless, this idea really is at the core of how brands are built.  A brand clearly isn’t a person with desires and sensations.  Yet, everything a brand does, says and shows helps to create the brand and its corporate culture – whether they transcend beyond mere branding as Apple has done.

In the interest of “self-awareness,” when was the last time your company did a image/concept brand audit showcasing all your “parts”?  Are they working together?  Anything need to be refined?  Anything which can be leveraged to new marketing practices or products that reinforce consumers’ view of your?  My take:  this audit is just as important as a financial audit; however, they often get overlooked.

Back to Julian:  I do think the human “You” is more than a collection of our experience – which was his argument.  Until there are brain transplants, my brain is unique to me and can’t be used to reassemble another homo sapien.  So on that, I disagree with him.  But my brand?  Time for my own self-audit!

Not much liking these matters (ah, the paperwork!), I decided to contact my current mortgage lender, PNC.  Online, their rates were competitive with others.

The process was pretty smooth, but throughout, as the interest rates continued to drop, I kept confirming that my rate would be adjusted lower at the time of closing.  The answer to this was always “yes.”

As the final papers were being prepared for signing, I asked again.  Now the story changed:  I could only drop to 4.00% (from 4.25%), and that would be if I came to closing with thousands of dollars.

I sent them a screen cap of listings from BankRate.com (including theirs) showing the current 15-year rate was 3.25%.  They didn’t care; said it was something to do with loan subordination with my line of credit.

So I called Wells Fargo, the bank which holds my line of credit.  I was approved at the 3.25% rate immediately; there were no issues with loan subordination.  I had the same contact person from start to finish, making the whole transaction feel very “small bank” and personal – a pleasant surprise.

PNC let an existing customer who always paid on time walk away.  How much will it cost them to find a brand new customer?  Why wasn’t the salesperson empowered to revise their interest rate to keep me with them?  I don’t understand this type of marketing or sales logic.

On the other hand, my contact at Wells Fargo has already gotten two referrals.  A much more cost effective customer acquisition strategy!

Ever had more than 4-6 concepts to test and weren’t sure how to get through 20 concepts in a single two-hour session?  Yes, I’ve had that happen more than once.  The most recent time, the concepts were all very good (i.e., clearly distinctive, well written ideas) and we really couldn’t cull down the number prior to the sessions starting.  After the first market, the client did streamline the concepts based on consumer feedback and all worked out well.  We used a more traditional grading approach, where abbreviated concepts were read and graded all at one time; we discussed the “best” performers in greater depth than the other concepts.

In the QRCA session I attended entitled “Unleashing the Power of Real People” by Justin Masterson and Jamie Johnson of Seek Research, they described an “auctioneering” approach:  they posted concept boards around the room and gave participants time to review reach one, making notes, quietly – as one might see people doing before an actual auction.  They actually employed an auctioneer to “call the items” (aka concepts) and participants bid on their preferred concepts.  Very quickly the better concepts emerged and were discussed in depth.  (An actual auctioneer isn’t really required if the moderator is comfortable, and I would be.  It sounds like great fun and a way to engage participants.)

Another option they’ve used is to have participants “invest” in concepts as though the concepts were products being sold on a stock exchange.  This approach I’m a bit more iffy about.  It moves the “bidding” into the area of what someone thinks will do well in the market vs. their personal reaction to an idea.  There have been quantitative approaches which use this “market knowledge” approach, and I’ve heard mixed reviews from clients about using them.

Yet, there are times when I would use the stock exchange idea to get to the meat of concept discussion.  For instance, if I were doing a group of “prosumers” (marketing or operations professionals from other industries as participants to solve a problem)  I think this approach makes sense; it would get these very left-brained participants to go with their gut reactions.

What are your thoughts about this idea?  Is it something you might use?

During this search, I kept seeing one word over and over again:  infographic.  When had that term become so mainstream?  I really like these visual depictions of quantitative data – they’re more fun and easier to understand, plus they are often able communicate much more information.  I’ve talked about infographics before in a newsletter piece, but never here.

To give you a couple of fun examples:  the first showcases how restaurant sales went up, comparing chains within the fast food and sit-down segments.  A much more engaging chart than the graphics of yesteryear! (Source:  DesignReviver.com)

This is my favorite recent one, from Shanghai Web Designers.  It visually summarizes what is done every 60 seconds on the Web:  70+ domain names are registered; 600+ new videos are uploaded to YouTube, 1,500 new blog posts go live – just to name a few.  The scope of the Internet’s impact is clearly seen in this one snapshot.

In qualitative research, infographics morph into something else.

• Personas are used to offer a feel for a target audience.
• Illustrations are used to explain a theory or concept, such at the one I used when explaining Situational Decision-Making in this blog post (click here).
• Collages are used to showcase a variety of things, including harder-to-articulate feelings about a brand.
• Word Clouds are created from qualitative answers to highlight which words are used most often.

With the flood of infographics on the quantitative research side, my sense is that on the qualitative side, we need to bring what we’re doing up a notch – we can do better.  So over the next few months, I intend to play when I’m reporting.  I’m seeing some new tools on sites like MakeUseOf.com and, for a nominal fee, Gliffy.com.  Maybe I’ll succeed and maybe I won’t. But it’ll be fun trying!

Any ideas you’d share about how you’re making qualitative research findings more visual – without the use of video?  Would love to hear from you!!

(RSS/Email Subscribers:  Having trouble seeing the images in this post?  Click on the post title and view the blog on the website.)