|
by Katie Harrison Dec 3 |
As we brace ourselves for a slowing economy, and marketing budgets are squeezed, it’s well worth asking; is qualitative research something you can do yourself? What can be done with a tight budget?
In one sense, qualitative research is not only something you can do yourself, it’s something you should do yourself. Here I’m specifically talking about informal observation; watching your/competitors’ customers – in real life, online – wherever they might be.
Informal observation is not only interesting in itself, it can also provide you with some rich context for understanding your customers’ experience. And it can help you identify issues that warrant further investigation.
But interesting and useful as it may be, it’s almost always necessary to go further than observation alone; to dig deeper to understand the behaviours you observe. And observation alone probably won’t deliver the goods if you need answers to specific business questions.
If you need to dig deeper and/or answer specific questions, you may find it helpful talk to a professional qualitative research consultant. They’ll be able to;
You can find accredited research consultants through the Australian Market and Social Research Society (AMSRS) directory. Consultants with QPMR (Qualified Practitioner of Market Research) accreditation generally have more experience.
What can be done with a tight budget? The short, but definitive answer here is; it depends.
First, of course, it depends on how you define ‘tight budget’. Second, a ‘tight budget’ (however it’s defined) may or may not adequately fund a useful inquiry; it depends on your information needs.
For discussion sake, though, let’s assume you have an adequate budget, tight or not, to fund a useful research project.
If you want to get maximum value for your research dollars, you need three things;
I can’t stress enough how important it is to talk to the right people, but I covered this in an earlier post in the series, so will focus on the second two topics here.
When I was starting out as a qualitative researcher, I was based in London. Fine city, but I seemed to spend quite a lot of time out of London, on the road, conducting focus groups anywhere but London. I must have covered every corner of regional England, and a fair chunk of country-side Scotland too.
Not surprisingly, these were groups that the clients couldn’t make it to, or didn’t want to travel for. Those who sent me off to such remote parts were clever enough to know not to put a junior moderator in front of a client. They knew what all experienced moderators know: good moderation is a product of experience, and lots of it.
Researchers with relatively little experience, perhaps straight out of university or a year or so into their careers, shouldn’t be allowed to moderate client-paid focus groups:
If you commission a series of focus groups, and half are run by juniors, you’re paying half of your research budget in training. Unless you’re happy to subsidise these training sessions, and are confident that the output will be sound enough to guide your business decisions, then insist that a senior consultant moderates all your groups and/or interviews.
To get the best value for your research dollars, insist that either all moderators working on your project watch all of each other's groups, or that one moderator conducts all the groups.
Here’s why. Let's say you commission a six group research project and you find that two moderators will be working on your project, each running three groups. Timings, diary clashes, etc. mean that they won't get to attend many (if any) of each other's groups.
When the groups are finished, the two moderators get together to discuss their three groups worth of insight. They then stitch the findings together, in a perfectly gestalt fashion, to deliver six groups worth of insight. Not!
It doesn’t work that way. The insight from three groups, even if you multiply it by two, is still just insight from three groups.
What's missing, is the incremental learning: each moderator has only three – not six – sessions in which to evolve and refine their hypotheses. Effectively, you’re getting three groups worth of insight, but you’re paying for six.
Next post, I’ll discuss qualitative sample considerations. Stay tuned!