Editor’s note: Melanie Courtright is EVP, global products and client services at marketing research firm Research Now, Plano, Texas.
We know marketing research is the basis of many of the important business decisions a company makes, not to mention the heart of mainstream media and politics. It helps us learn from the past, develop in the present and predict the future. Unfortunately, that’s not how the rest of the world sees us. Much of the world still envisions marketing research as clipboards tossed at uninterested folk and cold-calls that interrupt family dinners.
My fellow data, research and insight professionals, it’s time to face the stats. The current perception of marketing research has been tainted by an industry lifetime of misconceptions and faulty views. Or, that’s certainly what the anecdotal evidence that does the rounds at industry conferences would suggest.
To take the first step in actively changing our reputation, we teamed up with ESOMAR to provide insight into the public’s perception of marketing research. The study objective was to analyze the attitudes and opinions of 4,500 participants in the U.K., U.S. and Germany. The study factored in three sample sources; an online panel, a social media panel and a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) sample.
What we found is that although there is a broad understanding of marketing research, old perceptions die hard. While a proportion of participants had a broad understanding of the research industry, over half (59 percent) of those surveyed in the U.K., U.S. and Germany associate marketing research with people interviewing them on the street with clipboards.
Respondents vs. general public
Participation in marketing research is much higher among online panels compared to CATI participants. We were able to compare panel respondents who were more knowledgeable of the research industry to the CATI sample, who are far less familiar and, therefore, more representative of the general public’s perception of research.
Using participation level as a basis for comparison, the study seemed to point out one common thread. Panel respondents who participate in marketing research more frequently have a better understanding and perception of the industry, and therefore, are more trustful, which ultimately produces better quality data.
- Unfamiliarity with marketing research leads to outdated perceptions: In the U.S., 52 percent of CATI respondents associate marketing research with being interviewed in the street with clipboards, but this drops to 40 percent for the panel sample. In addition, 68 percent of CATI participants agreed that marketing research is about helping companies make more money, while half agree that marketing research surveys help companies make better decisions.
- Unfamiliarity with marketing research leads to mistrust: Only 48 percent of U.S. CATI participants trust marketing research with the information they provide. This rose to 63 percent for those in the panel sample. The study also found that U.S. panel participants are more likely to be comfortable sharing information in comparison to CATI participants, and are 20 percent more likely to be comfortable sharing information on things like food and alcohol spend, political views and views on advertising.
- Unfamiliarity with marketing research leads to poor data quality: The same conclusions were made in regards to data quality. In the U.S., 59 percent of CATI participants try to finish a survey as quickly as possible. This fell to 42 percent for panel sample. Unfortunately, many in the MR industry don’t regard fair compensation for respondent time as important, nor do they value the importance of a positive impression of marketing research. How are we expected to ensure quality research sample if we don’t push the key drivers of quality?
So why is the perception of marketing research so important? If we fix the public’s outdated perception, we increase the quality of research. A better understanding of research means more trust and better data.
“The more the public are engaged with the research, the greater their appreciation of – and participation in – all of the good work we conduct,” says Finn Raben, director general of ESOMAR. “A greater public engagement will also broaden knowledge of the many privacy commitments the research profession makes to its contributing participants, which will enforce confidence in responding truthfully – and reduce the post-truth element that any lower engagement level engenders.”
To date, few grasp the importance of the relationship between quality and the experience of the person behind the survey. The detachment between the researcher and the participant promotes issues of distrust, which ultimately creates barriers and a negative impact on data quality. In addition to better data, an improved perception could also have a positive effect on recruitment into the industry and the value of research in business.
Educating the public
The good news? There’s a solution – and it’s loud and clear. Our industry’s reputation can be revived with a push in educating the public of its importance to both business and society. One of the biggest issues the industry faces is that the majority of the public is either not fully educated on (or not at all aware of) the strong code of ethics that researchers adhere to. Of next steps, Raben says, “The simplest thing is to just shout out about what we do … while the content or end-objective of a research study may be deemed confidential, the conduct of research – and particularly the conduct of research to global ESOMAR standards – is not! The more we advertise what we do, and the commitments we make, the higher the engagement levels!”
This study has taken the first step to make a change by providing the market intelligence required to run a campaign to revive a damaged reputation that is long overdue for a rebrand. Now it’s up to the industry to change the public perception of marketing research. If you’re tired of explaining the value of your effort, let’s work together to make this change.