To Specialize or To Generalize — That is the Question
Do you choose Research Companies by Specialty? Sometimes it’s a good idea. Sometimes it’s not!
The Specialist Inspires Trust
You know the old saying: Jack of all trades, master of none. Going to the Specialist generally saves time (they don’t need to re-invent the wheel). And, they bring lots of good experience with the techniques they have mastered. This not only inspires confidence in the prospect of a flawless execution of the study, but the “mastered” technique can often enhance the Specialist’s analytical contribution. It is not surprising that many members of the market research community assign sections of a total project to different Specialists (the concept testing experts, the product testing experts, the tracking study experts, the packaging research experts, qualitative experts, big quantitative study experts, statistical experts, etc.).
Sometimes being a “specialist” is in the eyes of the beholder. As an example, some clients use us only for concept tests, others consider us to be “the college market expert”, others figure our talents would be wasted on anything that did not dip into intense statistical analysis. And, one client would not consider having anyone other than Ron Nelson do focus groups! (I do an unorthodox focus group, but that’s the subject for another Nelson Research Bulletin.)
The Other Side of the Coin
The analysis of each Specialist may be highly fragmented (each may not know the “whole story”). It is, therefore, difficult for the Specialist to “go beyond the numbers”. Since the Technique Specialist’s knowledge of the product category and relevant marketing background may often be incomplete, many Client Researchers prefer to do their own analysis and rely primarily on the Research Company to execute the study and provide tabulations.
However, in today’s economy burdened with reduced staffs, it becomes increasingly more difficult for the Research Manager to manage, analyze, write the report, give the presentation, go to the endless number of meetings, plan for the brand’s research needs and still be able to get 8 hours sleep at night.
The alternative: Assign a product category to a Research Company who has proven to you they can wear many analytical and technical hats. Keep the Project Director constant. (Unfortunately, this is not an easy feat with a large company.) If part of the assignment calls for groups, the Project Director should be skilled in this area (sitting behind the one-way mirror, or listening to the tapes is not quite the same thing). If the project calls for Statistical Analysis, they should have the answers (or, as a reality trade-off, at least know the questions and understand the answers from their staff “expert”).
Knowledge from one phase of a study seeps into the other phases. This increased knowledge makes it possible for the Research Company to provide you with a more complete analysis. The more they can do, the more time you have to ponder the Marketing Implications instead of getting wrapped up in analytical detail.
The following case history illustrates the contributions of the Research Generalist.
The Quantitative/Qualitative Connection (The Ambidextrous Researcher)
Additional analytical ammunition can be provided by using the rich insights from qualitative research to put meat on the bones of the numbers supplied by quantitative research.
In a recent A & U study for a health care product, we found that several of the “more personal” symptoms did not surface to the top of our benefits-sought list. However, some candid replies from qualitative research we conducted prompted us to dig a little deeper (fortunately, our client did not skimp on sample size). A glance at ratings by age within sex revealed that younger women considered relief of these symptoms to be very important. Men routinely dismissed the importance of these “personal” benefits. Since Nelson Research also conducted the qualitative phase, we were able to observe the same phenomenon first hand (but with some rather colorful quotes to illustrate male denial and some consistent testimony from the female groups regarding the need for a product to address the personal symptoms). A traditional GAP analysis in the A/U study clearly showed that younger women did not feel that currently used products were providing these “personal” benefits in proportion to the degree sought. Insights from the group sessions suggested ways of addressing the issue in a socially acceptable manner.
If all we had were my group sessions, we might not have had sufficient reason to pursue the strategy.
If we didn’t personally conduct and analyze the group sessions, we might not have delved as deeply to find that the sensitive benefit was important, but only to a specific segment. [Passively sitting behind the one-way mirror or seeing a videotape is not nearly as inspiring as personally moderating and analyzing the groups.]
The qualitative research provided a spark. The quantitative research, when properly analyzed, identified the spark as a major opportunity among a specific segment of ailment sufferers. Further, the qualitative research stimulated creative ways of positioning the benefit.