Nov 11, 2009
Was I wrong about quallies?
NOTE: This article will only make sense if you’ve received this month’s Research World mag.
When I wrote this slightly provocative piece for Research World (link only active during Nov ‘09) based on my feeling that quallies lacked ambition, I fully expected criticism and counter arguments.
Now, I did get a few folks telling me they agreed with the central tenets of my argument, namely that quallies weren’t innovating as much as they could be, or as much as entrepreneurs from outside the market research industry or some quant. firms.
But I didn’t get any criticism. Until now. And it’s come from an unexpected quarter: Simon Chadwick, editor-in-chief of Research World itself.
Here’s what Simon wrote:
…In the qualitative arena, however, we are seeing developments that perhaps come closer: collaborative research, ethnography and co-creation all feature heavily of accounts of development in qualitative. Indeed, Lewis and van der Wal conclude that co-creation can actually lead to increased brand loyalty, so perhaps there are hidden benefits to the ‘new’ qualitative!
Despite this, Surinder argues that innovation in qualitative research appears to be rather linear, as opposed to what is going on in quant. which he characterises as exponential. It is not often that I disagree with my old friend Surinder, but this is one of those times.
Simon is indeed a friend. But, hey, friends can disagree with one another.
You see, my target was the folks in the traditional part of the qualitative industry. That’s why I referred in my title to ‘quallies’ and not the ‘qualitative industry’.
Just as Simon does, I talk up the range of wonderful developments in areas such as neuroscience, biometrics and mass ethnography. But I then make this point:
You’ve [quallies] made a good start with those hybrid techniques. But some of the most interesting and potentially successful developments are arguably coming from ‘outsiders’ – entrepreneurs in quantitative and from outside the industry.
By which I was referring to developments in neuroscience which is being popularised by marketing ‘guru’ Martin Lindstrom. And the fact that quant. behemoth Nielsen has recently invested in Neurofocus (interestingly, Nielsen CEO David Calhoun sits on their board so this investment is clearly not casual). And the fact that online quant. agency BrainJuicer is experimenting with mass ethnography to scale its analogue cousin.
Simon’s core point is that quallies have been instrumental in these new developments. That may be the case but why aren’t they more prominent? Why aren’t they gunning to be the next Nielsen? That’s right, I absolutely think they should be building the next $1bn research company. If that sounds ridiculous for a qual. company then that’s not what I’m talking about; I’m talking, as Simon does in his piece, about a company that infuses deep and rich qualitative understanding into a scale business. It would be the ultimate research company. And it’s the ambition of a number of companies I know of. None of which do any significant level of traditional qual.
The difference of opinion may be one of vantage point. In any case, I still believe, in a positive way, that quallies aren’t ambitious enough. As I conclude in the piece…
Radical change is happening whether we like it or not. You have the talent, resources and nurturing environment to take advantage of that. Use that power wisely.
Related posts:
Not sure I agree at all. Surely communities are the big qual development, they are game changing, there is already a company (communispace) that is well on the way to being the very large company you are looking for.
Also in terms of quant changes I am not sure what these game changing innovations are. Sure there has been a movement to online panels but it wasn’t exactly the research industry driving the web! All we did is take our offline panel ideas and push them online and again it has taken 10 years or so to get any decent interactive surveys.
Finally I would say that a lot of the real innovations I have seen recently are quali / quant (for want of a better word) which would describe much of what Brainjuicer and MESH are doing (admit to bias here!).
Another friend of Surindas!
Cheers
Steve
Hey Steve,
Good points, as usual.
I haven’t really got my head around communities. And I say that because I haven’t seen evidence that they can scale through technology. And that’s what I’m keen on – using technology, rather than people, to scale these operations. Digital is on the fast track of evolution, not analogue.
And don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the quant. industry has it right. In fact it’s because there’s so much scope for improvement, and increasing recognition of this, that folks there seem increasingly motivated to experiment. I don’t see the same compelling mindset among quallies. Spring/MESH are among the exceptions.
Hi Surinder,
I think that you are more than correct. Quallies are either entirely based on the central importance of their own brain or trying to build systems based on ‘client service’ which are essentially ‘client flattery’. Neither of these are going to lead to growth although the ‘client flattery’ model is growing fast.
Best,
Dan
(Worldwide Strategic Planning Director, Publicis)
Thanks, Dan
Hi Surinder
I think one of the key points is about scale. Communities are beginning to show already they have scale, take a look at the revenues and the growth.
My definition of qual (something I am still working on) is roughly
a) if it is a process that when two trained practictioners use the same technique, with the same tools and assumptions produce the same answers, then it is quant – i.e. it derives its value from the data
b) If a is not true, but it is based on a proper methodology and approach, it is qual, the result is based on the data and the interpretation of the researcher
c) if it is not a) or b) it is meta physics and should be put to one side.
Quant can be scaled up, the people can be replaced with other trained individuals.
Qual is harder to scale because the best people can leave and form a new company. If you look at the history of great qual companies (The Research Business and Leapfrog for example) this is how they started.
The fact that there are no billion dollar qual companies is a function of qual, not of quallies.
Hmm, you say “… a company that infuses deep and rich qualitative understanding into a scale business … would be the ultimate research company. And it’s the ambition of a number of companies I know of. None of which do any significant level of traditional qual.”
Ipsos, where I work in the UK qual team Ipsos MORI Hothouse, has a huge global qual business and has done for a long time. A lot of this involves working collaboratively with quant colleagues and indeed other professionals like design agencies. And we have hybrid qual-quant techniques coming out of our ears.
My view is that there has been a paradigm shift within the wider culture towards recognition and use of qualitative ‘whole brain’ ways of thinking and away from pure reliance on ‘rational’, ‘left brain’ approaches. Why wouldn’t you take account of all available evidence before making a decision? Clients are more wise to this than some ‘traditional’ quant people (though hopefully there aren’t many of those in Ipsos these days!).
But I agree that qual people may lack ambition to build big companies. We’re just not those kind of people. Happy to discuss why if anyone’s interested!
Simon