ResearchTalk

“You must have mis-recruited me,” says Chris Forrest of qualitative house The Nursery, “I’m not sure there is lots of innovation in qualitative.”

Moreover, he feels there’s no need for innovation: “Qualitative research is quite evolved… a major tool for us is the good old focus group…it’s just a very good way to get people to interact with each other.”

But far from being a Luddite, Forrest is innovating, it just takes him a while to acknowledge this. And that’s not dissimilar from the initial reaction we get from others we spoke to.

So, where’s the innovation?
There are two emerging areas of innovation in qualitative, and both are online: hybrid techniques that capture quantitative and increasingly qualitative information; and, techniques that capitalise on web 2.0 and the increasingly participatory nature of the web.

These reflect some emerging ‘truths’. The fact that emotions play a more significant role in decisions than rational quantitative surveys suggest, hence the use of a hybrid model to infuse the data with emotional feedback. The fact that consumer presence and attention is shifting online, hence the use of online as a data collection method not just for quantitative data. And the extension of ethnographic techniques online where self-expression is abundant.

Qualitative agencies are starting to embrace online. As Sandrine McClure of Reperes (one of the first agencies in Second Life) puts it: “We’ve moved away from the ‘let’s do qual. the way we used to do it and let’s put it on the internet’ to now learning how to do it online properly.”

Hybrid: more than the sum of the parts
So-called hybrid techniques are not a recent innovation. Quantitative practitioners have included qualitative elements in questionnaires for some time to source rich, unprompted data. But here’s the difference: the new hybrid is driven by the qualitative folks.

For Forrest at least, the motive for developing hybrid techniques was defensive as well as progressive: “[we developed hybrid] because nobody is using all the theory we currently have about how the brain works, and we were going to conferences and finding that quanties were raiding the qual. toolbox…to make quant. surveys more interesting – they were taking some of our pie!”

Forrest uses hybrid techniques for brand communications work. They comprise three projective techniques: word association; a proximity/predisposition measure; and a semiotics-based picture sort based on the work of Gerald Zaltman. McClure deploys hybrid studies, which are similarly based on projective techniques, when developing brand platforms for new brands.

Qual 2.0
The humble blog, that bastion of self-expression, has really taken off as a platform for qualitative exploration.

Sven Arn of H,T,P Concept refers to his offering as a ‘focus blog’ and often sees it as a pre-group, a place for consumers to accurately report on product usage and discuss issues ahead of a traditional focus group: “You’re a lot closer to the moment of consumption using this technology…and the great thing about it is it takes place in their own time.” The ability for consumers to upload photos and rich media only adds to its attractiveness.

But why bother with the subsequent focus group at all? Arn says, and others tend to agree, that the humble focus group will be around for a while: “…one thing that we found doesn’t work in a blog…as soon as you start asking lots of questions, it ends up being a question and answer session and people lose their involvement, you don’t get a lot of depth.”

Unlike Arn, McClure often uses her ‘home use’ blogs standalone. Used for qualitative product testing, they are far superior to the paper diary due to their interactivity. In fact she recalls how interactivity transformed the prospects of a breakfast product. During testing most reported that the product was ‘disgusting’. But then one person came up with a preparation method that significantly improved the taste and texture. Needless to say the client was happy with this random act of co-creation!

McClure sees qualitative 2.0 as an enduring phenomenon, and one that is becoming increasingly mainstream among consumers (no longer youth-centric) and agencies.

But let’s balance this unfettered enthusiasm with a clientside perspective. Crispin Beale, recently appointed head of Facts International but hitherto a career client (Royal Mail, BT and a major electronics retailer), puts it succinctly: “online communities have been more successful than I thought they would be.”

Assessing innovation
Innovation is all very good. Clients say they want it. And we know that in competitive markets with a low barrier to entry (i.e. MR), the most innovative players tend to thrive.

Forrest, however, takes issue with the notion that clients always want it: “It’s been a truism in the industry for a number of years that if you want to win a proposal then you recommend lots of interesting methodologies…but the client says they only have budget for the focus groups. You win the project on the sizzle stuff but then they don’t do the sizzle stuff…clients like to feel they are buying something funky.”

Beale takes issue with this: “[As a client] we were always looking for innovation.” And he didn’t buy any of the arguments about innovative techniques being too risky to try: “…it’s very much talking to a network of peers, finding out who’s been using new techniques. Then if something new can give you a competitive advantage, you just try things on a small scale.”

Informed buyers would, Beale says, belong to client networks and discuss the efficacy of new techniques: “…sometimes we’ll say I’ll give it a go and then next time say it’s your turn.” Moreover, “…it’s not just the techniques, it’s the individuals. And if you get individuals that you trust and respect within the industry…then you’re more predisposed.”

McClure provides a balancing view: “Innovating still takes a leap of faith, it takes confidence. [Clients] need to have faith in your agency and confidence in themselves [to be able to sell it internally].” That said, as the number of success stories presented in conferences and publications increases, clients will no longer have to rely on that intuitive sixth sense for internal justification.

And also…
Our panel suggest other areas that are ripe for innovation.

Hy Mariampolski of Qualidata, a specialist in ethnography, has more issues with interpretation than techniques: “Most practitioners don’t have the foggiest notion of how to interpret projective techniques…I’m looking for a higher level of interpretation, not a higher level of analysis.” As an example, he cites a shower study where they tried to understand why a person washed their hair five times, something only made clear through observation. The interpretation, that showering was a self-nurturing behaviour, well beyond basic functional need, fundamentally changed the category.

Beale welcomes more actionability: “…sometimes as an industry we get very, very tied up in specific methodologies, whereas what we should be getting tied up in is how we used those insights to make money or save money.”