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.

This podcast accompanies our article in the Oct ‘09 edition of ESOMAR’s Research World. Grab your copy here.

I had the privilege of chatting with inventor, entrepreneur and futurologist Ray Kurzweil recently. Here’s the full conversation in podcast form. (The full writeup will appear in October’s issue of Research World.)

Thanks to freelance media and marketing journalist Jo Bowman for the use of her dulcet tones in the outro

Music Theatrimus from the PMN

Watch this episode of web video show Scam School, which focuses on the tricks memory can play. Afterwards, think again about whether you should always believe what consumers say.

If you want to see another example of this in practice, in a case that had very sad consequences, check out this 60 minutes story and accompanying video.

And the winner of the Buyology giveaway is…Elizabeth Luke.

Elizabeth is a senior at the University of Southern California spending her final semester abroad at the University of Amsterdam. She is a communication major with an interest in persuasion and consumer behavior. She will be graduating magna cum laude in December 2008, and shortly after, she will begin her career as a research analyst for emerging consumer products at Nielsen BASES.

Elizabeth’s book is on the way, thanks again to Martin Lindstrom and publishers Random House.

Here are Martin’s responses to some of the questions you sent in (thanks for all the entries):

Q1. While your findings are quite interesting and counter-intuitive (controversy sells, sex doesn’t; product placement can be ineffective), most know that much of consumer behavior is borne from the subconscious. However, if this is so, how come market research, which often comes from conscious opinions from consumers, is so successful? If buyers are not fully aware of their true intentions, then how come we still get useful answers when we ask them directly? (Elizabeth Luke)

A1. I think the reason why market research is ’so successful’ is because, until today, there haven’t been any alternatives uncovering our subconscious mind. Think about it – most research today is only uncovering the conscious mind – this however is about to change and I think neuromarketing is likely to be the answer.

Q2. I would like to ask Martin’s reaction to the criticism the book has received (such as http://adage.com/print?article_id=132035). Is he confident that his conclusions stand up to scientific scrutiny, and how does he refute the allegations made about his methodology? (Simon Kendrick, commercial research consultant, ITV)

A2. There will always be critical voices when new methods are invented. Neuromarketing is far from the answer to everything – however it is (in my mind) a strong alternative to conventional research – and in particular a powerful tool in order to understand our subconscious mind. I’ve spent around $7 million creating the Buyology study – a 4 year long project involving 2,000 consumers and two of the most respected scientists in the world within the field of neuromarketing. Of course there will always be question marks if things could have been done better that said I’m very confident that no-one has developed similar studies at this high level at this scale. I’d like to stress that nothing is 100% correct in the world of science – this of course will always be the case with our work too. Finally – I do indeed work with a range of the largest anti-smoking organizations in the U.S. and across the world – this may be a good indication of that the results are solid enough to be used in order to improve our communication work.

Q3. I’ve heard it said that a brand can either position itself as good value or high quality, but it’s very hard to be both. Do you think this is true or is there an opportunity – particularly during a difficult economic time – for quality brands to also reposition themselves as value? (Max Willey, Associate Director, Continental Research)

A3. I think it is very dangerous ground and a strategy most companies should avoid. Sorry.

Q4. If everything I believe about buying is wrong, why do I ‘comfort’ buy? And what are your thoughts on shopping habits based on emotional responses? (Marie Greaves, Senior Project Manager, Lightspeed Research)

A4. Shopping habits are in 60% of cases driven by our subconscious mind – and thus “comfort” or habits or rituals – are often the main driver why we buy what we buy. What’s wrong is the way the advertising industry has (over the last couple of years) managed to capture the consumers – the communication has turned to rational and thus misses the opportunity to talk to our subconscious mind.

Here’s the original post…

Hey everyone, it’s giveaway time

UPDATE: Giveaway now closed.

Thanks to brand futurist Martin Lindstrom and publishers Random House, we’re giving away a copy of Martin’s new book, Buyology. For info on the book look here, here, or here.

The giveaway: we’re restricted this time to mailing to the UK or Europe. You also need to be a member of the Facebook group. Then, email us with your name, position, company, country and one incisive question for Martin.

We’ll try to get Martin to answer the best ones and get him to nominate the one that impressed him most. So get thinking – we need your submission by 11.59pm CET this Friday, 14th.

 STARRING 

• Agostino Di Falco, Head of Insight, Viacom Brand Solutions

PODCAST
In our inaugural podcast we interview the eloquent Agostino Di Falco, Head of Insight and Research at Viacom Brand Solutions, the advertising sales operation for MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, Paramount and E! channels.

Agostino talks passionately about an innovative research study, conducted by Neurosence, that has led to some remarkable conclusions about how TV advertising is consumed and how it can be made more effective.

The study comes at a poignant time for TV advertising given the growing use of DVR/PVR technology, such as Sky+ and Tivo, to skip past commercials.

Agostino goes onto talk about how other research led to commissioning the extreme car makeover show Pimp My Ride for MTV UK.

Please let us know what you think of this podcast.

TIMELINE [19m18s]
00m00s Introduction to Viacom Brand Solutions
01m36s Introduction to Agostino Di Falco.
Neuroscience Study
02m25s Intro.
03m20s Structure.
05m26s Key finding 1.
07m55s Key finding 2.
11m23s Industry reactions.
13m10s Other VBS research.
15m10s Pimp My Ride study.
17m05s Future trends.
18m25s Message for researchers.

Music Brother Love from the PMN

Series:MarketingTalk Series:AdTalk