Voices: the CMB Blog

This month, John and Megan discuss the perils of unprofessional language for market researchers.

MM: Over the past few months, more than any other topic, we have talked about language. Of all the issues to address, why is this one so important?

JM: I believe the absence of professional language among market researchers endangers both the credibility of our profession and the process of scientific inquiry. The so-called “true” professions law, medicine, and engineering each have a carefully defined and universally agreed upon set of unique terms that allow professionals to communicate accurately and provide them legal protection by avoiding miscommunication. The language of market researchers is often so casual and imprecise that it impacts the validity of the work we do, affecting the insight and value we can provide clients.

MM: Can you give examples of some common language issues in market research?

JM: There are two main types of language problems.  The first is bad grammar, and that is not confined to market researchers or market research but is part of a larger threat to professional competence. For example, I often see incorrect use of tenses— findings “are” and what we did “was.”  Then I see reports with “We used research for the decision” – that is incorrect, you used the “results” to support a decision.  Often, there is confusion about the meaning of decisions, hypotheses, and “findings” versus “conclusions.”

Secondly, there is general laxity in the use of what little technical language we have.  For example, “the two variables are correlated” – no, the conclusion is that they are related or associated; the correlation coefficient supports that conclusion.  Then there is failure to recognize that the sample design (DATA SOURCE) and data collection (HOW) are different with distinct specifications that must be separated in reporting.  Furthermore, there is poor use of critical concepts, especially declaring “randomness” and/or representativeness when the requirements are not all met.  Finally, how often do you see the term “interview” incorrectly used to refer to internet data collection or a self-completion questionnaire? 

Especially aggravating to me is misuse of the term “survey” epitomized in a report I received once that stated “we conducted a survey using a survey.”  The term “survey” is widely used such as by engineers (land survey), librarians (literature survey), and auditors (resource survey).  It has a broad meaning, usually about examining multiple points for a review, investigation, assessment or inquiry.  However, in marketing research we must use more precise language: a product development study, a self-completion questionnaire, a telephone interview.       

MM: What is the main consequence of poor language?

JM: Lack of precision opens the researcher to criticism, especially from competitors, makes him or her look incompetent, and legally vulnerable.  Consider facing an expert in court where you testified a random sampling was used, yet all required specifications of this sample design were not met.  How would you respond to a cross examination pointing out the shortcomings? Would you state that you didn’t know?  Imagine if this was further compounded by the opposing lawyers submitting a document labeled “Questionnaire” that you referred to as a “survey,” claiming data collection was “internet interviews” when it was actually a self-completion questionnaire. The key issue is that an understanding of, and adherence to, a strict set of practices and guidelines lend credibility and consistency to what is basically a scientific process. 

MM: Why does market research, in particular, face these issues? What can be done?

JM: To your first question, unlike the requirements for doctors, lawyers and engineers, there is no common education or certification from a professional body that is required to be identified as a “market researcher.” Although there are standard rules of ethics and behavior (e.g., AMA, CASRO), there is no overarching mechanism to ensure professionalism for concepts and language. Unlike law or medicine, many people enter the field without formal training. It is inconceivable to go to a lawyer who did not graduate from law school or a doctor who didn’t graduate from a reputable medical school.   This issue is compounded when considering the hiring of research associates without any formal business training. So, you may hire a capable analyst who is good at math but without more formal training, they may not understand the nature of their new profession.

This brings me to the second part of your question.  The starting point is to take greater care when employing people.  Lack of training in marketing strategy and operations is a difficult deficit to overcome, and nearly impossible without training in research methods and statistics.  In the marketing space there are associations and vehicles through which people can try to be more professional but at present, most education comes from the employer.  It is now critical that the industry build the education and certification we need, until then it is up to all of us to seek individual improvement.

What do you think, is non-professional language a problem? What can be done?

Last week, 14 CMBers headed down to sunny Orlando for The Market Research Event (TMRE). Back in the office, I asked my fellow attendees which parts of the conference stood out to them. As expected, Jim’s presentation with GE Care Credit, and Rich’s session with Aflac were fan favorites (and these were votes from people other than Jim and Rich!). But over and over again the same talk was highlighted—Sheena Iyengar’s keynote on the nature of choice based on her 2010 book The Art of Choosing. Dr. Iyengar’s presentation was my favorite as well; so much so, that I bought the book, guarded it from jealous colleagues, and read it in two days.

Iyengar, a psychology professor at Columbia, explores the nature of choice through a social-psychological lens, and by conducting rigorous and thoughtful academic research— refreshing in a time when fluffy pop-sociology books rule the book lists. She contends choice is at once  central to self-identity, and capable of overwhelming us when they we are unable to effectively process them.

Though we live in an age where abundance is worshipped, and Target and Costco thrive, those of us who’ve found ourselves staring open mouthed at the cereal aisle for too long understand the paralysis that can accompany too much choice. In particular, it can be debilitating to be faced with an array of choices we are not readily able to distinguish from one another. Iyengar, who is blind, told a great story about asking two women in a nail salon to help her choose a color by describing the difference between the virtually indistinguishable Adore-a-ball and Ballet Slippers light pink nail polish. Her point is we’re often drawn to the places that offer us the greatest choice  (would you go to a salon that only offered 5 colors?), but if we’re not experts, we don’t know how to choose without a way to articulate what makes one product different from another.

Iyengar’s famous ”jam experiment” (you may have heard about it, even if you don’t know her name) illustrates this point nicely. In the mid-90’s as a Stanford grad student she set up two tables with samples of jam at a California supermarket. One table featured just six choices, while the other offered nearly 30. She found that shoppers who visited the table with fewer samples were significantly more likely to buy the jam, as compared with those who’d sample the greater selection. What was more striking was that those who were offered fewer choices also reported greater satisfaction with their purchase as well.

What does this mean for market researchers, for companies, and for those of us standing around perplexed in the grocery store? Iyengar does propose “7” as the optimal number of choices a person can handle, but concedes choosing is more complicated than a “magical” number — it’s informed by context and culture. Perfect number or not, she argues that limiting choices to what can truly be differentiated will make for more satisfied and effective choosers. Iyengar makes a good case that focusing on improving the process of choosing is far more effective tool than just increasing the number of options.

Posted by Megan McManaman. Megan is CMB's Content Marketing Manager and would happily go to a nail salon with just 5 nail polish colors. Follow her on Twitter at @Megz79.

This month, John and Megan talk about the differences between importance and salience, and why they should matter to market researchers and their clients.

MM: In September we talked about differentiating goals from needs, and why market researchers must be more precise in their language. This month we’re discussing a different kind of distinction—between importance and salience.  What is this differentiation?

JM: I see salience and importance as two different conditions to address significance.  Salience is about the prominence of something that can change quickly (dynamic and short-term) while importance is about something more substantial and enduring (stable and long-term). I think it’s helpful to visualize importance and salience as ends of a continuum representing types of significance. As researchers we should attempt to represent those different conditions since they have a major bearing on how our results are applied.  Things that are salient will change fast and actions may accentuate those changes.  On the other hand, things that are important will have more long term meaning for enduring applications.

MM: We know that, in market research, significance is central to understanding decision making.  Can you give a concrete example of how importance and salience fit in?

JM: Think about what matters most to you now for service calls to your bank.  It may be speed of the response.  However, when the bank takes action so that your speed requirements are always met, something else will rise in significance to you, such as respect or treatment.  So speed is replaced by respect, and we can expect another change in the near future in what is salient to you.  On the other hand, you have personal values, such as honesty and responsibility taking.  These may vary in their relative significance but remain stable over time in their importance. At present, researchers use significance and importance interchangeably while salience is often ignored altogether.

MM: This is where it gets a bit fuzzy for me; the idea of short-term versus long-term significance seems a bit nebulous.

JM: It’s quite a pragmatic distinction. The word “important” should represent applications where significance is long-term or basic to what matters to a person.  “Salience” refers to more dynamic criteria where significance can be changed.  Put simply, importance is highly relevant when building offers and salience is relevant when identifying where to apply improvement programs. Both are concerned with revenue (importance to acquire and salience to retain) and cost (importance to trade-off what is provided and salience to prioritize maintenance expenditures).

MM: It’s clearer to me that the “importance” is best used when trying to leverage attributes of a company, product, or service, and “salience” is appropriate when we are measuring a process or criteria that are constantly shifting. But, why is this distinction so important?

JM: At the core of market research, is the desire to understand motivations and decision making. When we are more precise with our language we are more precise with our methods. We are better able to determine which criterion is most significant and then to prioritize what is most meaningful, it directly translates into improved business strategy and decision making.

Next month John tackles the problem of imprecise language in Market Research. What terms do you most often see misused; “data” instead of “results,” “survey” instead of “questionnaire?” Let us know in the comments.

Join us at the 2011 Market Research Event in sunny Orlando November 7^th to the 9^th. Lots of CMBers will be in attendance and presenting, including Jim Garrity who will be discussing increasing customer loyalty with GE CareCredit’s Sheila Dreyer. And  Rich Schreuer will be presenting: Unleashing the Power of Discrete Choice, with Kelly Servedio and Missy Wood from Aflac.  Still need a ticket to the event? Enter the code: TMRE11CMB when you register for 25% off the ticket price.

Don't miss these presentations:

Turning Customers into Advocates: GE CareCredit Increases Customer Loyalty with their Advisory Panel

Date and Time: 8:45 Monday, November 7, 2011

Speakers: Jim Garrity, Vice President of Financial Services, Chadwick Martin Bailey; Sheila Dreyer, Consumer VOC Leader, GE CareCredit

Summary: Learn how GE CareCredit redesigned their online customer advocacy panel, creating a community with high engagement and even greater value. This online community of cardholders has become a group of trusted advisors and strong advocates for the brand. Learn how:

•GE CareCredit uses their community to enhance the customer profile for future segmentation

•GE CareCredit is using their online panel for a multitude of business decisions throughout their organization

• Engaging with their advisory panel breeds loyalty and greater returns

Aflac Unleashes the Power of Discrete Choice, Positioning their Brand for the Future

Date and Time: 10:30 Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Speakers: Rich Schreuer, Senior Vice President, Chadwick Martin Bailey and Kelly Servedio, Manager of Market Research Insights & Missy Wood, 2nd Vice President, Market Research Insights, Aflac

Summary: Learn how Aflac and Chadwick Martin Bailey took an innovative approach using discrete choice to help Aflac focus and enhance their brand for the future. A technique typically reserved for product development, discrete choice overcame many of the obstacles associated with brand positioning studies delivering Aflac a roadmap to increase demand and educate consumers on all "The Duck” has to offer. See how this brand used research to prepare for the future:

• A new approach to an age old technique, using discrete choice for brand development

• How the teams crafted a design that yielded precise recommendations for multiple dimensions of the brand

• Moving from results to action, see how Aflac used this research to drive their marketing communications and messaging to better connect to its value proposition

And stop by our booth #406 to say hello, and for a chance to win a New England Clambake for two.

Posted by Megan McManaman, Megan is CMB's Content Marketing Manager. She is headed straight to TMRE from her honeymoon, she wouldn't miss Jim Garrity's presentation for the world.

In this month’s “John’s Corner,” John  and Megan discuss the evolution of segmentation.

MM: Market segmentation has been around a long time and new methodologies continue to develop.  Why is segmentation so relevant to business?

JM: Segmentation comes from economics; it supplies some of the greatest benefits to businesses available through market research.  Its great contribution is enabling major improvements in two critical areas. First it aids effectiveness—identifying and getting products or services to the right people, and second it increases efficiency—less spend per person. That's a very simplified characterization of the classical approach to segmentation.

MM: In the past two decades, a more nuanced view of segmentation has evolved at CMB, can you speak to that?

JM: Segmentation was a dominant research focus for us from day one. Most marketing decisions require segmentation.  As we conducted more projects we used our learnings to establish guidelines that would ensure clients received more and more useful outcomes. These best practices that are still used today and include: starting with the end in mind—determining  how the segmentation will be used before you begin; allowing  for multiple bases—taking a comprehensive, model-based approach— incorporating all potential bases; leveraging existing resources and databases; and above all having an open mind and letting the segments define themselves.

MM: How, and at what point in the process, do you determine what approach to take for segmentation?

JM: About twenty years ago we realized that there were two types of decisions for which segmentation was used. The first was strategic, dealing with decisions about what the business unit was doing, and the second was tactical, focusing on how to carry the strategy out such as targeted messaging. Understanding these options was significant when we scoped projects and determined how to proceed.  As our client base grew with multiple divisions we realized that for diversified businesses there was a third set of decisions to address: those at the corporate level above the business units.  However, it was not until about 2003 with Microsoft that we had the opportunity to conduct this corporate level segmentation.

MM: So you decided that there are three levels of segmentation: corporate, strategic, and tactical. What made the corporate level so necessary?

JM: Keep in mind that across all of these levels we are looking at decisions.  Decisions required at the corporate level are opportunity based and about organizational alignment (e.g., work together) versus more narrow decisions about market communication or product design. For large corporations with multiple divisions you need a broad view to focus synergies across the organization. To segment by divisions in large corporations is to miss the bigger picture and obscure the most fundamental decisions that ensure that the total organization will meet its goals. The corporate level segmentation provides the market focus framework to identify, understand, and capture corporate opportunities.

MM: In an age of big corporations and conglomerates, why don’t we see your three level approach used more broadly?

JM: I think the fundamental reason lies with the education system where segmentation is treated as a homogenous marketing phenomenon, and has failed to recognize management decision making. This myopia is also certainly reinforced by day to day practice. I’m sure most people in market research understand that segmentation projects differ but not sufficiently to make a radical differentiation that informs how projects are scoped and undertaken— which is really the key.

So what do you think, has segmentation evolved? What best fits the corporate culture?