Archives

Last week, going through a training seminar on iTrack’s new social media monitoring service, I was humbled.  This happens fairly often when trying to stay up on the latest advances in technology and the Web.  In this case, I was asked if I knew of Klout, an online service that produces an influencer score for those on the Internet.  I had not.

From their website:  “The Klout Score is the measurement of your overall online influence. The scores range from 1 to 100 with higher scores representing a wider and stronger sphere of influence. Klout uses over 35 variables on Facebook and Twitter to measure True Reach, Amplification Probability, and Network Score.”

I am at best an infrequent Facebook user; I tweet maybe once a week or when I see something of interest.  My blog posts are automatically tweeted.  I comment on posts I see that are of interest, on websites and in private forums.  That’s about it.

Klout had no idea who I was when I entered my Twitter name @CarynGoldsmith.  Once I signed up, I got my (again very humbling) score of 5.  Here’s what it looked like:

Seth Godin, a well-known marketing guru who focuses on digital delivery of his books and blogs, but isn’t into Twitter, has a Klout score that looks like this:

Clearly, much more influence due to the reach of his blog, which must be why his score is as high as it is.

Turn this around and look at a very active younger research professional I know and see that he’s much more likely to be driving the conversation online between people:

Reach=size of your engaged audience; Amplification=likelihood your info will be acted upon by others; Network=influence level of you engaged audience.

I don’t have an issue with a score like this being created, but one must suspend logic and believe that the online space is the entire universe.  That’s too much for me.  Just last year, I quoted the very respected Spike Jones (Brains on Fire) when he said that 90% of word-of-mouth marketing happens offline.  That’s right, offline.

The online space is very verbal.  And while it can be visual with YouTube videos and the like, a score like this focuses on words which are often tangible – tweets, retweets, mentions, likes, etc.   Further, the focus really is on influencers and not trendsetters.  Someone’s ability to influence others is terrific, but if I’m looking for those who can help refine a product concept or redesign a service, that may be someone completely different.

Nevertheless, Klout seems to have done a good job with building their score.  And we do need a good way to identify influencers online.  Yet, if we are recruiting for qualitative research – even if it’s to take place online –  we need to take some care here:

• On what topics are they influential?
• Who are they influencing (other leaders, buyers, etc.)? And what is that sphere of influence?
• Finally, how can we augment these influencers with others who are also influencers in other ways and/or offline?

Great tool.  Glad I learned about it.  Hope to have a chance to integrate it into a project soon!

Your thoughts?

Not that long ago, I conducted a study in multiple markets.  In one market, recruiting was done in the traditional way:  all by phone.  In another market, an email blast was sent out to filtered database members to see if they qualified based on category usage alone.  In the third market, I later found out that the entire screener had been sent to filtered database members, with follow-up personal validation.

Truth is, I couldn’t tell the difference in the quality of recruits.  They were all excellent.

A positive aspect of online recruiting is that you can screen someone all the way through without termination points and it doesn’t impact costs and/or you can prevent the use of the “back button” in the survey so that people can’t  “beat the system” by changing/anticipating answers.

However, if online recruiting is to be done, qualitative researchers and facilities need to consider several  things:

• Is the target online?  It might be faster, more accurate, and less expensive to administer the screener online, but if the target isn’t represented online as it might be in the general telephone population (or even if they don’t check their email as often – a major problem I’ve noticed before), other options should be employed.  Some stats:
  • Only 79% of adults are online, according to a May ’10 Pew Research report; this doesn’t vary by urbanicity, although African Americans and Hispanics (English and Spanish speaking) are less likely to have Internet access (70% and 64%, respectively, Pew Jan ’10).
  • As expected, Internet access is lower among older adults and those less well educated (only 38% of those age 65+ have Internet access,  coupled with only 39% of those with less than a high school education and 63% of high school grads,  Pew Jan ’10.)
• Security screening as it’s been done in the past needs to be re-worked for an online environment.  (It probably should be re-worked anyway.)  It’s fairly easy to focus on a potential recruit’s employment, but harder to get at immediate family “conflicts.”  But it’s doable.
• Just as online quantitative surveys required alternative question types and scales to increase engagement, online self-administered qualitative screening questionnaires need to be written differently.  This applies to questions about a participant’s aptitude for creativity, problem-solving, influencing others, etc., as well.
• For quality control:
  • Qualitative researchers should be approving skip patterns and the like for the online survey versions vs. just passing off the screener in print form.  (After all, the quality of the questionnaire creates an initial impression for the project, just as a personal recruiter does.)
  • Personal follow-ups with new types of validation questions are needed to ensure the person recruited is who they say they are.
  • Moderators should be hyper-vigilant in their own re-screening to ensure the newer methods are working as they’d like.
  • The facilities need to build systems that verify respondents are answering the same way on key demographic questions from study-to-study – something that would increase the integrity of participants, however they’re recruited, for all studies.

Recruiting, like much of qualitative research, is both an art and a science.  Technology and the Internet affords us other options for recruitment.  As time goes on, other issues are likely to emerge.

For now, these are my thoughts.  I’d love to hear what other moderators and clients have to add!

We’ve been hearing a lot about the “new” mixed-method or hybrid market research techniques called “Quant/Qual” of late.  Truth is, if you’ve been around marketing research for any length of time, you know that we’ve been doing “quant/qual” or “qual/quant” for decades.

What’s different – and noteworthy – is the way technology is being leveraged.  Two companies come to mind, yet I’m sure there are others:

iModerate – Fields a larger quant study and then pulls off certain participants to have a one-on-one follow up with a professional moderator.  As their site says:  Research>iMpact provides a hybrid approach in which online qualitative sessions are incorporated into virtually any online survey, giving you qualitative insight that enhances and clarifies the quantitative data.

Invoke Solutions – Seemingly more quantitative in orientation, Invoke is leveraging their technology to obtain richer and deeper open-ended responses.  They say that it’s like a focus group experience, but I’m going to need to learn more before I’m convinced.  Having said that, I’ve seen enough that I’m intrigued and I want to learn more.  The client-interface portion looks very powerful.

But are either of these “new”?  I started this topic thinking, “No, they’re not really new at all.  Just a new twist on an old approach.”

But the more I think about this, the more I believe these might be new approaches.  The dividing line for me lies in the definition of “qualitative research.”

• Qualitative research explores.
• Great open-ended responses in quantitative research explains.

For now, I’m going to continue to think of these newer approaches in these ways – and make client recommendations accordingly.  And, as always, I’ll continue to seek out more info.  If you’ve got something to share on this subject, please do!

Online market research methods continue to evolve.  Here’s what I’m thinking about the most common qualitative methods right now.  They’re being presented as stand-alone ideas, but certainly can be used as part of mixed-method designs.

Focus Groups (with or without webcams)

How it works: Focus groups happen in real-time and are moderator-directed.  Clients view online while sessions take place and can send messages to the moderator throughout.  Webcams make viewing sessions more interesting for all involved.  Written exercises or anchoring thoughts can be done using (private) chat features.  “Whiteboards” are available for showing materials.  Some projective techniques may be harder to employ.

When to use: When you have a geographically-dispersed or hard-to-find target and you need the interaction of a traditional focus group discussion.

Bulletin Boards

How it works: Boards are set up, most typically, for a 3-5 day period, although they can certainly go longer  Participants know they need to logon 2-3 times a day (or less depending on study design), at their convenience, to answer questions posted by the moderator; answers are typed.  (Participant time commitment might be 20 minutes to an hour per day.)  The moderator can control whether people need to respond to a question before seeing others’ responses.  Participants are encouraged to review others’ answers, make comments, etc.  Fostering interaction is critical to the success of this approach.  “Whiteboards” for showing materials are also available in this setting.

When to use: Especially good for hard-to-reach targets (IT professionals, doctors, etc.), when materials presented may evolve over the course of the board, when there’s broad geographical requirements (such as international studies), and/or when added privacy will allow for more candid responses.

Video Diaries

How it works: Over the course of the study, participants view pre-recorded moderator questions at their convenience.  Talking to the webcam, they can take their time answering with their thoughts, feelings and opinions.  Follow-up questions can be sent to participants by the moderator, although there is less probing by the moderator in this method than in focus groups or bulletin boards.  There is no participant interaction; this is another form of an in-depth interview.  It can also be viewed as a more updated, richer approach to man-on-the-street interviews.

When to use: When you think participants will find this format the best way to open up on a subject.  Can be useful in conjunction with focus groups to help make participants more aware of their thoughts/feelings on a subject prior to exploration of a related issue (e.g., new product launch in an existing category or brand repositioning).

Journaling

How it works: A cousin to video diary, although journaling happens in a written format and there is even less moderator involvement.  Guidelines are set-up by the moderator at the start and then they take a back-seat.  (As with bulletin boards, reminder emails to encourage participation and to keep them on task can be sent, but typically this is kept to a minimum.)  Participants can journal from anywhere they have Internet access, and are encouraged to do so on a regular basis for the full study period (which can go for a couple of weeks to months).  This method is somewhat closer to ethnographic research than other methods.

When to use: For more open-ended assignments, where there’s a general topic or two.  Good for “know the consumer” research and/or for topics where people’s reactions might vary by time of day (such as how they decide what/where to eat or childcare issues).

Blogging

How it works: A private, project-specific blog community is set-up.  Each participant has their own blog, where they can write, upload images, videos, etc.  They are given topics/issues to blog on (again in general terms).  Participants are encouraged to comment on each others’ blog postings.  The moderator can ask follow-up questions.  Blogging is a cousin of journaling, although there is more participant interaction; it’s also a cousin of bulletin boards, although in this case the interactions are less moderator-directed.  Because participants need to get into the swing and spirit of the project, the length of the project should be longer (at least a few weeks in my opinion).

When to use: When a hybrid method is needed that can combine some of the benefits of journaling and bulletin boards – which can create a synergy all its own.

Mobile Research

How it works: Questions are sent via text message to participants’ cell phones.  Answers tend to be short given text-messaging restrictions (approximately 160 characters – slightly more than a Tweet). Participants do not interact with one another.  The moderator may ask follow-up questions.

When to use: When we know we’d get a better quality answer by having someone text as something is occurring vs. waiting for them to get back to a computer and relying on memory.  Currently cost effective for multi-question studies.

Communities

How it works: A large number of people (N=400+) are invited to participate in a community; typically participants know the sponsor.  (They might even be recruited from a Facebook fan page.)  Participants are strongly encouraged to interact with one another absent any formal research project in social-network type areas of the community; reports on these activities can be sent to clients on a regular basis.  Sub-groups of community members are recruited to various studies during the course of the community’s life.  This qualitative method represents a blend of directed and less-directed research activities, with the potential for great creativity in research design.  Once the community is established, quicker timelines on individual projects are possible (recruiting is very fast).

When to use: It’s recommended that if a company can construct at least a six-month research plan, with frequently scheduled projects, an online community should be considered.  (Example: when developing a new product line from ideation to product roll-out.)

Your thoughts?  Any experiences you’d like to share?
PSGWMUKXJDY8