“We all need to do our own research.” It seems to me that we hear this phrase often these days. Regardless of the forum – be it marketing, politics, health and wellness, financial matters – the edict is always the same. This statement is actually a correct one no matter how it applies. The real question, though, is, “what does this really mean?” If we are in the pursuit of “doing our own research”, do we have a set of “standards” by which we determine, either individually or corporately, that our “research” and the results we uncover are as correct and useful as possible?
This blog entry does not delve into statistical analysis, although a perusal of the subject would be helpful to many, as important elements are analyzed. The decision of whether certain research goals require a “population” or simply a “sample” and whether the results that are derived actually mean what one believes are questions every good researcher must face. I will present 5 fundamental principles that marketing researchers must remember when faced with either explicit tasks to conduct research, or with situations where research is needed even if they are not aware of it. Certainly, there are more I could present here, but we’ll keep it fairly brief.
Quite bluntly, my observation, no matter in which context the phrase is used, is that the phrase “we must do our own research” is about the same as a high school girl saying “let’s just be friends”. In the latter statement, 1) there is no intention of ever being friends, 2) the other party is not allowed the opportunity to present a reasoned debate on this outcome (the decision was made by the girl), 3) there is no accounting for whether the “source” of the decision was valid or appropriate (maybe her friends all agreed)…and so it goes. In the context of someone stating “we must do our own research”, they are usually implying at least one or more of the following: 1) “I am correct, this is what I think, and I don’t want outside opinions”, 2) “Go away and leave me alone, it is not open for discussion”, 3) “I consulted my ‘usual sources’ without any regard as to their validity”, 4) “This issue is not important enough for me to really exert any energy on it”. Of course, I could go on, but you get the idea.
Yes, the list above seems a little cynical, but if we are being truly honest, we know that this appears to be the general indications given (a possible research opportunity? – more on this in a moment). To be fair, there is an overload of information in today’s society, and consuming it all is impossible. We also must prioritize the most important issues and focus on what matters to us most. With this, I begin my list of important fundamentals when approaching research and the need for it:
1) Try not to assume. If you make an assertion, make sure you can back it up factually. I’ll be up front on this one. I’m guilty of this too – I believe we all are at times. We make an assertion about a client’s service or product and say “people want this”, or “studies show that” when, in fact, we don’t know for a fact that they do. We may be basing our knowledge on previous efforts in which we’ve been involved. This might be effective, but we must verify that the information is timely and that empirical evidence backs up our assertions. This of course, assumes that the issue is “important enough” to warrant such verification.
2) “What have you done for me lately?” Okay, well, maybe it doesn’t matter what someone has done, but this is part of the last point above. Make sure that all information gathered is timely and reflects the information as it is most recently, whenever possible. A good example of this is looking at today’s “mobile shopping” habits of consumers. This is an obvious point for most, but if you were to look at data only one year old, you would find completely different numbers than if you analyzed data today. The target is moving that quickly. Many issues will thankfully not move quite as fast, but timeliness should be assessed.
3) Always verify, as closely as possible, that you are pulling data as “close to the source” as possible. I spent some time working at various radio news organizations in the past. While those organizations were very studious about doing the best work they could do, I noticed a trend in the industry as a whole, especially as technology had taken over and the bad economy started to replace experienced workers with lower paid “stand-ins”. The newswires would print a story (that was probably derived from another source originally) and all news affiliates of a particular news network would simply “rehash” the story – many times in almost identical words of the newswire. Yes, time and expense limited other approaches to disseminating the news. The whole point of this example, though, is that no one could say with accuracy whether any of the news passed “down the chain” was completely accurate or just a “re-telling” of someone’s version of an incident. In a way, this is what we must guard against in doing our research. If you were investigating the habitat of a rare bird in South America, for instance, then get as close to the actual source of those who live around the subject, witness it first hand, etc. Therefore, data that is collected should be not only collected near the source initially, but then verified, checked again, documented, etc. One must have the highest possible confidence that the data is accurate and timely.
4) Don’t let opposing points of view cloud your efforts. This is one of the toughest points to adhere to for most, but it is the only way to feel truly confident about your efforts. Whether you have a strongly-engrained loyalty to a client’s product and its image, or a deeply held personal belief, try to consistently check yourself as you conduct your research to make sure you are not influencing it with your own bias. If you are, for instance, researching public sentiment on “fast food” campaigns, and you are an ardent fast food connoisseur, it might be wise to have a third party involved in the research, or at least other sources to “audit” your efforts to guarantee that, as much as is possible, bias is removed from the equation.
5) Do not embark on your research efforts in order to find a pre-determined result. This point is similar to the one above, but I want to emphasize one important aspect: “premeditation”. Actually, this element can creep into research at any stage, but it most often happens before one starts. For example, let’s say I ask this question: “What percentage of people understand the fact that fast food is bad for them and will kill them by age 45?”. This question essentially implies, by using the word “fact” that indeed, fast food is bad and will kill someone by 45. If this type of question is asked of a survey respondent, they will give an inappropriate answer, believing that this is indeed a fact, when it may not be. There are many other ways that survey responses can be “manipulated”, thereby skewing the results of surveys greatly. It should be a high priority for researchers to research a point in order to find out what the data says, not what they want it to say. Prepare to learn, possibly be personally disappointed, but factually correct according to the data uncovered.
Hopefully the points presented here will assist anyone embarking on research projects, regardless of their application. When armed with facts, one can be confident they will possess data that is more useful, and if need be, more defendable.
Tags: Marketing Research, news, politics, Research
