Category Archives: Marketing History
On the Value of Humility.
My grandfather once asked me, “who do you want to be—the guy who has all the answers, or the guy who has all the questions?” When I said I wanted to be the guy with the answers, he laughed and said, “in that case, you’re never going to learn a damned thing.” At the time, I doubt I understood his point. And this wasn’t the last time somebody would try to make this point to me.
Before getting into qualitative, I spent several years in CPG brand management, working in several marketing groups over that period. Culturally, they all had one thing in common:: admitting not knowing something about your brand or consumer was very risky. This was seen as evidence that you weren’t fully immersed in your business. Most of the consumer research in which I was involved was highly confirmatory—we were simply looking to verify what we thought we knew to be true. At one point, a moderator with whom we were working was admonished not to ask questions that were exploratory in nature, and just stick to the discussion guide he’d been given. He asked, “if you guys know so much about your consumer and what she wants, why are you doing research at all?” The sarcasm in his tone was unmistakable.
Shortly after getting into qualitative, I was conversing with another moderator, the late Jan Beehner-Chandler. She made one remark I’ve never forgotten … “you can’t tell some clients and researchers anything. They think they already know everything, so they won’t listen, and so most of the things they could learn from research go right by them.”
Eventually I got the message. Thinking you have all the answers is antithetical to insightful research, because the most important element to uncovering new information is humility. Without humility – the overt acknowledgement of one’s own shortcomings and ignorance – there can be no curiosity, no ability to question and research and learn. So, whenever I embark upon a new study I always begin from a place of humility. I list out:
-
What I believe to be true beyond reasonable doubt
-
What might be true but I don’t know for sure
-
What I know that I don’t know
-
Some thoughts on what I don’t know that I don’t know.
I use this to inform my initial conversations with my client, and to develop research objectives, discussion guides and research stimuli. And all of this comes from consciously acknowledging that there’s stuff I don’t know.
So You Ask: What’s a Hybrid?
Here’s a question I get asked a lot … “do I prefer doing online or face-to-face qualitative research?” The answer I always give … “yes, I like them both”. And here’s a closely-related question that I also often get … “what’s the right approach for a specific research study, online or in-person?” And I’ll frequently give the same answer … “yes, let’s do both.” For in fact, often the best approach is to use both. In the past, our qualitative research toolbox was pretty limited. We had focus groups of various sizes, in-depth interviews (IDIs), and maybe some telephone interviews. Now we have a dizzying array of tools available to us, and often the best way to get the most bang out of a research buck is to combine them.
The guiding principle here is that online (OL) and face-to-face (F2F) research tools have very different strengths and weaknesses. So, by putting them together, we can create an approach that yields far more insight than any of its individual components can alone.
-
F2F research approaches offer a high level of engagement. I don’t care what anybody says, no online approach can offer the same level of deep, personal connection that in-person research can. Having everybody in the same physical location also allows a high degree of flexibility. Because of all this, F2F is where new and unexpected insights are most likely to come to light.
-
OL is highly time and travel efficient. It can also be a big problem solver for low incidence recruits, as it allows you to recruit out of a national sample. What’s more, it’s a highly efficient way to get a lot of the preliminaries out of the way—introductions, basic attitudes and practices, etc., and it’s also a good way to test a large number of ingoing ideas or hypotheses very efficiently and discard the weaker ones.