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?

What can B2B companies learn from Black Friday and the Holiday Shopping frenzy?

The Holiday 2011 Shopping season got off to a strong start over the weekend.  Black Friday was the biggest ever for brick-and-mortar retailers; and there was an even bigger increase for online retailers.  Overall, the weekend was a huge success when compared to the start of the 2010 holiday shopping season.

The fact that Black Friday saw an increase in retail sales this year should not come as a surprise.  Much research (including our own) foretold strong buying intentions, with a continued shift to online shopping. The sheer size of the increase, however, is quite a surprise.  Many analysts predicted a 2-3% rise in holiday shopping activity, so the big jump this weekend has brightened the prospects for American consumers and retailers.

So, does this mean all of the Black Friday deals and hype worked?  The midnight store openings?  The door-buster deals?  The incessant advertising and promotions?  Is there any way we can do something like this in the B2B space? 

Let’s put the holiday shopping activity into perspective.  We are at the end of the year and consumers are looking at their bank accounts and budgets, and assessing how much is left to spend, and looking at the bare walls where the flat screen TV should be hanging.  We find a great deal of pent-up demand in the US market, as US consumers have been through another difficult year and pulled back on spending.  This cutting back has left people with more money to spend (whether from their bank accounts or credits cards).  

So, it looks like we are finding a strong convergence of:

• The Supply (retailers going out of their way to make it easy for consumers to shop and buy with longer hours and lower prices)

• The Demand (a rather strong need to refresh the cupboards), and

• The Financial Support (to make it all come together)

Much of the same can be said for business.  Budgets have been trimmed for several years, resulting in the need for investments and purchases to lead and support growth in the future.  As on the consumer side, cutting back has created strong profits for many companies, which means they have money to spend. 

What is the supply in this B2B equation?  Are companies making the necessary effort to match pent-up demand and the ability to spend?

First of all, B2B can’t replicate door-buster deals and midnight store openings.  But, B2B firms can:

• Make it easy for companies to spend:  Look at the holiday deals for shoppers, and you will see promotions for items priced from $25 to $2,500 (and even higher).  If for no other reason than “spend-it-or-lose it,” companies approach the end of their budgetary year with the need to purchase – when selling to other businesses, you need to be prepared with products and services in a range of prices to meet their budgets.

• Address the need to invest, and communicate it repeatedly:  The theme of Holiday Shopping 2011 has been the consumers’ need to purchase many of the new technologies and new fashions that they’ve been unable to buy over the past year.  The same can be said for business, but instead of the latest tablet or gaming console bringing joy to the consumer and her/his family, the product or service will bring opportunity to grow and advance the business.

• Know your customer’s budgetary cycle:  Retailers have it easy in this area – personal budgets follow the calendar years, so December represents the rush for consumers to spend within their annual budget.  However, companies have unique fiscal years, often tied to industry business cycles.  If you sell to businesses, it is smart to know when your customers may be looking to spend leftover cash.

• Clearly understand customer needs and wants:  This should go without saying, but retailers greatly prepare for this time of year by deeply analyzing what consumers need and want.  They tailor product offers, pricing and communication to meet them and remain focused on the key aspects driving purchases.   

Posted by Jeff McKenna, Jeff is a Senior Consultant at CMB, and the creator and host of our Tools and Techniques Webinar Series.

Black Friday is nearly upon us.  For Americans under 30, the Friday after Thanksgiving has always been “Black Friday,” and the madness of doorbusters, riots, and people camping out in front of major retailers defines the day.  But this hasn’t always been the case, and a brief walk down memory lane reminds me that great opportunities exist to prepare and define the next phase of this holiday tradition…

A nice summary of “Black Friday” history shows the day after Thanksgiving has marked the start of the holiday shopping season for over a century.

Just a few interesting facts…

• It wasn’t until recent years (mid-‘00s) that Black Friday actually became the busiest shopping day of the year.

• Philadelphia police officers dubbed the day “Black Friday” around the mid-1960s because of the massive traffic in the city brought on by the start of the shopping season and the annual Army-Navy football game, which was hosted in Philadelphia.

• Black Friday was not given the name because it was the date when retailers’ balance sheets went from being in the red to being in the black.  This myth arose in the mid-1980s as the name became part of common lexicon, but retailers started to spin the new story to counteract negative connotations.

Snooping around YouTube, I found this Miami news report from 1984:

One noteworthy aspect of the video, besides the fashion (yikes!), is the fact that “Black Friday” is never mentioned.  Not one reference to “black” or “Friday,” even though the telecast was reporting about the big start to the holiday shopping season.   In fact, the reporter interviewed a husband and wife shopping together – not like today where Black Friday is promoted as a “lone wolf” activity, where a solo shopper has the freedom and flexibility to snatch up every deal. Or alternatively it is treated like a team event where groups of shoppers strategically coordinate their shopping tactics.

On the other hand, the final segment of the clip references the start of the retail store camping-out trend, with the story about Cabbage Patch Kids.  If you don’t know the history of the original CPK, watch this video, and skip to the 1-minute mark to see the vision of Holiday shopping future back in 1983:

So, how does this apply today?  Are we to expect Black Friday to continue its march to become the “Battle Royale” of shopping events, and even swallow up Thanksgiving, as several are cautioning?

I don’t think this is necessarily the case.  In fact, the point of the earlier comments is that things change, and rather rapidly at that.  Black Friday has not always been the gluttonous event of “doorbusters” and “Midnight Madness” sales.  While it has marked the start of year-end shopping activity, it’s only been recently since retailers have put a huge premium on this single day.

And I think we see the winds of change in new shopping behaviors.  As we recently reported from research in our Consumer Pulse, nearly the same share of people plan to shop online on Cyber Monday (38%) as on Black Friday (39%) this year.  And, online retailers have been implementing a big push to attract shoppers this year as they seek to gain a larger share of holiday sales (my inbox is filled with offers from a wide variety of e-tailers, and all I need to do is click a mouse rather than sit outside my local Best Buy with thermos in-hand.)

 In the end, the online start to holiday shopping and doorbuster deals will become “serverbuster” deals, and people looking for the killer deals or must-have gifts will do it online.  (The recent Target Missoni online fiasco shows that shoppers are as content rioting online as in-stores)  Then, perhaps, the Friday after Thanksgiving will return to the old days with families would get together and simply go shopping.

For more on holiday shopping trends download our latest Consumer Pulse: The Holiday Shopper: Cyber Monday, Black Friday, online shopping and what they mean for retailers.

Posted by Jeff McKenna. Jeff is a senior consultant at CMB, he is not asking for a Cabbage Patch Kid this year.

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.