Building bridges

Editor’s note: Anndel Martin is president of Opinions Unlimited, Inc., Houston. Merrill Shugoll is president of Shugoll Research, Bethesda, Md.

High prices. Low show rates. Poorly written screeners. Under- or non-qualified respondents. 120-day-old unpaid invoices. Last-minute changes and requests. Surprise charges. Unfulfilled expectations. Unrealistic quota groups. Short deadlines.

These are but a few of the problems raised earlier this year by the over 188 facilities and moderators attending the Bridges Workshop at the Marketing Research Association (MRA) annual conference in New York and the 50 attending the Qualitative Research Consultants Association’s (QRCA) reciprocal session in Chicago.

Suspicion between moderators and facilities is legendary, though most moderators and facilities indicate that the overwhelming majority of qualitative studies go well, with maybe a minor hiccup or two along the way. However, the relatively low incidence of “disasters” drives the perception that something is amiss with the “quality” in qualitative research.

The good news is that 2001 was a watershed year for building bridges between moderators and facilities. Both came together in New York in June for the MRA-sponsored Bridges Workshop, “Can We Talk?” and again this October in Chicago when the QRCA sponsored a session called “Building Bridges.”

In New York, the workshop started with a panel of facility owners and QRCA moderators led by Judy Langer of Roper/Langer Qualitative Research. The panel attempted to address questions solicited from the audience. It was agreed after the session that a small panel doesn’t provide the variety of perspectives craved by the audience. However, this problem was overcome in the roundtable discussions that followed. Facility owners and managers, and field directors and moderators engaged in a spirited but respectful dialog in assessing what went wrong in a number of case studies prepared by a Bridges task force headed by Jane Rosen of Nichols Research.

The case studies proved to be an interesting and useful tool for confronting issues that have festered over the years, and they helped circumvent the finger-pointing that can accompany discussions about “bad outcomes.” For the QRCA session, the MRA/QRCA Joint Committee fine-tuned the case study approach, hoping for a repeat success. Participants were not disappointed.

Talking, listening, and discovering that we agree on most issues proved to be a very powerful catharsis for many participants. One common thread heard throughout the sessions is the need for more and better communication.

What did we learn?

  • All parties should set and share expectations. Many unpleasant situations could be avoided if early in the study we would determine our expectations and share those expectations.
  • Keep the lines of communication open. Better decisions are made when we are informed.
  • Daily attention. Most problems arise and details slip through the cracks when either or both sides fail to discuss frequently how the study is progressing.
  • Look for workable solutions. Problems are exacerbated when our energies are directed toward trying to place the blame
  • Be flexible and think creatively! Things will come up - that is the nature of qualitative research - and sometimes eight-to-10 respondents is not realistic. Consider alternative formats such as triads, or implement non-traditional methods for finding the needle in the haystack.
  • Anticipate problems. Be proactive.
  • Document changes - important advice to avoid misunderstandings or surprises, especially when specs change or a new request is made.
  • When a study starts unraveling, act quickly. Identify viable options as soon as possible and do not wait until the last minute. Implement cost containment measures when bad weather threatens show rates, such as replacing the video operator with stationary video and cutting back on food.
  • Seek compromise. In most situations, both parties are culpable.
  • Get involved in your association. MRA and QRCA members feel that involved members are informed members who are less likely to contribute to the types of problems encountered in the case studies.

Facilities

  • Help the moderator avoid hidden costs. Moderators do not like surprises, and often cannot pass charges on to their clients. Provide a list of additional services and costs that will be incurred when the project is bid and whenever additional services are requested, and build a small amount into the bid to cover a few extras, i.e. some copies, a fax.
  • Help moderators understand why bids are higher. Most are sympathetic to increased costs when they become aware of the escalating costs of leasing prime space, of upgrading space and technology at focus group centers, of hiring qualified recruiters, and of compensating savvy consumers for their time and opinions.

Moderators

  • Don’t be afraid to ask about costs. Facilities are happy to look at their fees and either rework a bid or explain the reasons for their charges.
  • Listen to the facility. The facility wants the project to succeed! A good facility knows the market, the effect of weather and traffic, and has the experience gained from recruiting thousands of respondents of varying profiles.
  • Give the facility the information they need to perform. Provide written specs and a descriptive profile of the desired respondent, in addition to the screener. Screeners too often do not yield the right respondents.
  • Leverage the team. When problems occur across markets, enlist all of the facilities’ help to identify how to overcome the problems instead of telling each facility that they are the only one “failing” to get the respondents.
  • Give the facility the benefit of the doubt. Unless it is obvious that the project was mishandled, there is a 7 percent chance of less than eight showing just due to bad luck, according to researcher Pete DePaulo.
  • Release holds promptly. Facilities lose confirmed projects (and revenue) while they are chasing down moderators holding space.
  • Leverage over-recruiting for better show rates and best respondents. Over-recruiting, i.e., recruiting 13 for 10 to show and seat eight, allows the moderator to choose the most qualified or desired mix of respondents. Let the facility know the bottom line: does the moderator want 12 recruited and will be happy with eight shows, or does the moderator really want 10 to show?

Sessions were productive

Most of us went into these Bridges sessions curious, and unsure about what to expect from the “other side.” Some attendees anticipated that they might see the sparks fly! Most of us came away from the discussions encouraged. and feeling that we had just touched the tip of an iceberg. The sessions were productive and revealed that we need a better understanding about what the other does, how and why they do it, and how it impacts performance and price.

The notion of Bridges was conceived in 1991 when Alice Rodgers, editor of the QRCA’s newsletter, and Anndel Martin, MRA board member and editor of MRA’s Alert!, provided a forum for moderators and facilities for sharing expectations and issues through a quarterly column named “Bridges.” In 1996, the MRA/QRCA Joint Committee was formed to take the concept further, and specifically, to develop best practices.

In 2001, Merrill Shugoll spearheaded an effort to bring the boards of both associations together to form the QRCA & MRA Strategic Alliance task force. This task force has identified areas where the synergy of the combined resources can enhance the professionalism and image of qualitative research.

In 2002, The Bridges Case Study sessions will be rolled out to MRA and QRCA chapters, and a half-day session of Bridges is planned for MRA’s annual conference in Washington, D.C. on June 5-7.