They love me, they love me not
While many researchers are justifiably confident of the value they bring to their companies, are those views shared by other internal teams and their company as a whole? The survey for the 2024 Q Report asked respondents for their thoughts on the key metrics they are judged on and their sense of their standing within their organizations.
How would you rate your company’s marketing research function on the following fronts?
Most respondents rate their organization’s marketing research function as “good” or “very good.” Nearly half (46%) say the insights department is “very good” at understanding the customer and 48% say it is “good” at uncovering business problems using research. However, when it comes to the ability to demonstrate ROI, 43% say it is fair, 21% believe it is poor and 4% say it is very poor.
What are the key metrics against which your marketing research function is judged?
Researchers say many of the key metrics they are judged on are based on numbers – of dollars spent or unspent in a budget, of projects completed in a quarter or a year, of days/weeks/months needed to complete a project.
Speed, accuracy of data, customer service as an internal service function to the company, ability to stick to budget.
Availability of data to answer business questions in timely and effective way – data at our fingertips to prove the impact of marketing.
Tangible, actionable insights, new product development and ultimately new distribution and sales.
This is an interesting one as there is not a formal metric, it’s more about demonstrating impact. It’s more the other way, our team is responsible for coming up with targets for the business and measuring them (e.g., around reach and impact), influencing business strategy (around half of the business objectives for the year have come from the research team).
We don't have specific ones for insights but we are expected to contribute to the overall success of our business unit's OKRs around revenue/sales, customer acquisition/retention, etc.
Others indicate that they are judged on less-definable criteria and their ability to answer questions effectively to move the business forward.
Our metrics are more qualitative in nature – building our brand, strengthening relationships across the organization, bringing the customer to the center of all decisions.
[We are measured on the] extent to which market/customer insights are used to drive development of business strategies and tactics.
I don't know that there are specific key measures but rather having senior leaders personally value the work and understand that it has helped them navigate the business forward.
Uncovering key insights that help drive action or answer questions; ultimately the goal is driving focus.
It is all qualitative. Did we help push through key initiatives? Did we achieve our marketing objectives – which are usually more descriptive than metric-based.
Some respondents are unsure of the ways their performance is assessed.
Do not really get judged but I am also not sure how much sway our research insights have on business decisions as a result of that. People want data-driven insights but often only if the data fits their strategy or agenda.
There are no clear metrics for this. If anything, we are viewed as adding value when it comes to validation research. Not sure we get any credit/recognition for the more strategic work that can really shape and transform the business. And upfront strategic work is much harder to embed. The organization I work at talks a lot about human centricity but gives themselves credit in this space if we can check the box on doing a BASES or PRS test.
Since market research is a shared service within my organization, I often don't hear how the stakeholders applied insights and how these insights affect our business. Therefore, it is challenging and ambiguous.
How valued do you think the marketing research and insight function is at your company?
1 = not valued at all, 10 = extremely valued
When asked how valued the marketing research function is internally, over half of respondents say their company is a 7 or higher on a 10-point scale of “not valued at all” to “extremely valued.”
Our team is always involved in decisions made at board-level, our work is referenced and shared across the business as we always provide insights based in commercial understanding/reality which I believe is useful for the teams.
Extremely valued. The head of research sits on the leadership team. Research has driven a large share of strategy. The team has been protected from staffing cuts due to the value it provides and is consulted regularly for decision-making.
The company is very appreciative and reliant on the insights function at this company, which goes much beyond traditional market research to include competitor market insights, industry trends and sales forecasting.
And then there are those who feel their teams are overlooked and underappreciated.
My company highly utilizes market research but I don't feel like my team receives the same rewards in terms of raises/promotions/salaries as compared to the marketing team.
Research is not given importance at all.
As there is no research and insight function, the idea of research and insight is valued highly but it is not a priority in terms of staffing or budget for projects – so not really valued, I guess.
Market research is an afterthought – it is rarely something that is considered in a plan up-front.
Elsewhere, the takes were more nuanced, citing instances where companies pick and choose when they laud the insights team.
It's a 10 when management needs research for something. It's a 0-2 when you ask management to properly resource the marketing research and insights function. Average of the two = 5-6.
While the results are highly valued, investment in growing the department has been stagnant. Mixed signals on how valued the function really is.
Our team is very experienced and our work is held in high esteem. However, research is not central to our group's mission and will never be as valued as other functions.
At the end of the project, when we deliver results, our internal clients are always incredibly pleased and complimentary of our work. But I feel that there's a strong general sense across the business that anyone can do research and that this is not a specialized area of expertise (e.g., the “market research analyst” job title was eliminated and replaced with simple “data analyst”; leaders are hired to lead research team with little to no market research background; new hires are brought in with zero research background and thrown into the trenches on major research projects, usually being set up for failure due to not even understanding the basics of a survey questionnaire).
There's a strong sense that our function could be easily replaced by outside vendors. Although we have many great partnerships, the vendors do not understand the business like we do and often are overworked to the point of needing babysitting to catch at times the simplest of data quality concerns (incorrect programming, inconsistency between waves, etc.).
They say research is everything and the most important part of our business but they treat us as a support function.
By the marketing team (which we support), it's a 10. By the overall company? A 6 may be stretching it. Everyone talks about how important it is but the unwillingness to increase our budget or think outside the box seems to contradict that.
And then there was this researcher, perhaps enjoying a sensation that every insights professional would secretly love to have.
Research is very valued and increasing in value. There are still obstacles that we run into – in part because it's so valued that there is also fear of it.
Methodology
The Q Report work life and salary and compensation study of end-client/corporate researchers is based on data gathered from an invite-only online survey sent to pre-qualified marketing research subscribers of Quirk’s. The survey was fielded from June 17 to July 23, 2024. In total we received 1,504 usable qualified responses, of which 502 were from end-client researchers and used for this end-client report. An interval (margin of error) of 2.49 at the 95% confidence level was achieved for the entire study. (Not all respondents answered all questions.)