But, one thing I don’t think we talk about enough are the aesthetics of our reports and presentations.

I think this is because MR grew up in a world where data was scarce and valuable and simply churning out large presentations with numerous bar graphs was enough.

But, I am now convinced that aesthetics and knowledge compression via “infographics”, “data visualization” and good design will quickly become a make-or-break differentiator for both suppliers and departments.

There are several reasons why I write this:

1. Time compression: No one has the time to methodically go thru a 120 slide “super deck”. Certainly not executives.

2. Democratization of Design: Seemingly everyone these days is looking to leverage quality design to aid the sale of their products, and this is as true in tangible products as it is in professional services. The tools are now widely available.

3. Complexity: Along with time compression things have simply become more complex and “infographics” can help cut through the clutter and complexity and simplify large amounts of information.

4. Story: As an industry I believe that we are generally weak at telling the story inside the information. Advances in data visualization fused with storytelling can bring a complex set of insights to life for time compressed executives.

5. Competition: With so much open source information, firms that can simple arrange syndicated work with open source data, glean insight and communicate with clarity (and flair) can challenge traditional (data collection focused but aesthetically weak) incumbents.

Here are some books I recommend for their thinking on this:

1. “resonate” by Nancy Duarte
2. “A Whole New Mind” by Daniel Pink
3. “Visualize This” by Nathan Yau
4. “The Substance of Style” by Virginia Postrel (also one of my favorite authors)

RPM

Writing what became titled “The Futures of Marketing Research” and designated the epilogue was a labor of love.

In this epilogue I developed 22 potential futures for the research industry.

Interestingly, I faced two challenges in writing this chapter.

The first was the challenge of language. Thinking about potential futures means exploring things that have not been created yet. And one natural limitation is language. In some cases I had to invent language to describe some of the things that I anticipate. Some of these words and phrases were: RIMEing (rapid, in market experimentation), IIS (iterative Insight Streaming), ACS (anticipatory customer strategies), “nannytargeting”, etc.

The second challenge was overcoming my own fear that some of the industry scenarios I developed seemed a bit far fetched. But, here I leaned heavily on the famous futurist Jim Dator and his well known statement that “any useful statement about the futures should appear to be ridiculous.”

And this leads me to the six people that I need to thank for the epilogue.

First, I need to thank Jim Dator. His speech at The Market Research Event in Las Vegas several years ago was so interesting, divisive (MR folks either loved it or hated it) and thought provoking that I kept adding notes to my notes on his speech. He remains one of the most impressive pure thinkers I have ever shared a room with.

Next up is Peter Bishop at the University of Houston. Peter is a well-known, and well-published futurist. He is one of the few exceptionally smart people that I have met who has a kindness that matches his intellect. His one week course on strategic foresight was unforgetable and my fellow students only added to the experience.

Next is Ian Lewis at Cambiar. Ian penned the first chapter of Leading Edge Marketing Research with Simon Chadwick and has written extensively about NewMR. I learn something every time I talk with him. I was so impressed with him that I invited him to address my firm’s senior leaders.

Next is Lenny Murphy. Lenny has his eyes on the horizon of research more than anyone I know and his categorical knowledge of which firms are doing what is impressive. Plus, Lenny is just a kick-ass guy. I wish he was my neighbor.

And finally I owe a big thank you to Sparky Zivin and Barbara Coons (colleagues at StrategyOne). They proofed my writing and offered helpful and unvarnished feedback. I can honestly say that as I commute to work each morning I look forward to seeing them in the halls, at their desks and around the coffee machine.

My next piece will cover how my thinking has evolved since I wrote the epilogue.

http://www.strategyone.com/documents/CASRO%20Presentation%20Futures%20of%20MR.pdf

Here I outline the 5 Megatrends facing the industry and 22 plausible futures based on these trends.

It will be THE tour de force of nextgen market research, covering every new innovation in the field and rich with insights about the futures of the industry.

To learn more, check out Sage Publishing’s website: http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book235437/toc

I truly enjoyed writing the epilogue – “The Future of Marketing Research”

For a full list of authors, click here:
http://www.leadingedgemarketingresearch.com/id9.html

http://bit.ly/gFm0W8

I’m looking forward to discussing these topics, but especially privacy, at the Technology Driven Market Research Event.

“I think that in 10 years if you ask a question on a social network and you get an answer you will not know if a computer or a person has answered you.”

While my first reaction to reading this was to think back to my recollections of the so-called “Turing Test” and the “Chinese Room”, it occurred to me that the evolution of chatterbots will have an impact on market research.

These so-called Artificial Conversational Entities (chatterbots) could be deployed across social networking sites much like the old door-to-door interviewers of the early Elmo Roper and George Gallup era.

If a scenario like this comes to pass, research participants wouldn’t be able to distinguish between a real (human) interviewer and an AI interviewer asking them questions.

At present there is quite a bit of experimentation with “web scraping” technologies. Nielsen was famously criticized by a Wall Street Journal article for scraping sensitive consumer data. Despite the privacy and analytical challenges I expect web scraping to continue. But, will APING (AI chatterbots conducting “interviews” on social networking sites) replace SCRAPING (web scraping programs)? It is possible? Yes. Is it probable? I’m skeptical.

I suspect that chatterbots as research tools will have several challenges in their own right:

1. Chatterbots will need to disclose that they are conducting research.
2. Chatterbots may eventually be required to clearly identify online as chatterbots (and not humans).
3. Chatterbots could be deployed so easily that they could quickly (a) become a nuisance and (b) crash respondent participation levels.

These strike me as significant hurdles.

But, with all these challenges in mind I can think of at least two (2) likely and appropriate uses for chatterbots in research:

1. Chatterbots could be utilized within large MROC environments to keep niche discussions vibrant and help the moderator manage the site on a 24-7 basis. After all, a community manager has to sleep at some point.

2. Chatterbots could be used for inbound, online, customer satisfaction feedback. They could be programmed to get to the bottom of a customer’s complaint or praise in a conversational online format (like instant message) and could relay information in real-time using text analytics.

Even these scenarios seem to be years away.

In any event, it will be interesting to see this unfold.

Quarterly brand trackers are commonplace and a key (dependable) source of revenue for the larger MR suppliers.

Annual corporate reputation studies are also fielded for most large corporations and are focused on a much wider array of universes than the brand tracker.

Different metrics and different audiences separate these two research programs. For now.

But, what happens when the following trends collide?

1. Frictionless data acquisition on any company or product.
2. Complete transparency driven by niche blogging, employee websites, wikileaks, etc.
3. Aggregated corporate reputation rating schemes. Think eBay seller ratings and ratemyprofessors.com

If and when this happens we can anticipate the merger of brand and corporate reputation with the possibility that corporate reputation swallows up brand research.

Why?

Because the amount of chatter and user generated content created externally about the corporation and its products, mission and behavior will be much, much larger than the mindshare purchased via advertising.

I have recently read two books that address this issue in passing. Consider the thinking of these authors:

Richard Watson, Future Files:
“By the year 2020 people, products and organizations will have reliability ratings. These will grade honesty, integrity and transparency and will be created by and available to everyone…Reputations will therefore be actively managed and, in some cases, even traded or stolen.” (page 34)

Rachel Botsman, What’s Mine is Yours:
“People will have ‘reputation bank accounts’ alongside their normal banks accounts, and a reputation rating will literally measure contributions made to various collaborative communities.” (page 224)

If you follow this thinking to its conclusion, then reputation management will likely eclipse brand management within the decade. This will be a bigger, more holistic job, than brand management, because it will interface with HR, operations, marketing, etc.

On one hand, this could be very good for market research. It could give MR a much stronger seat at the table.

On the other, all the needed tracking data could be open and available to all. This would mean that MR would need to aggregate and track the data, as opposed to collecting it.

Insights functions should strongly consider the implications of this shift.

We hear this at every market research conference.

But, how do we define an “insight” and how do we segment insights? After all, insights come in a number of flavors.

Interestingly, when you ask market researchers to define an insight you tend to hear a response that is less specific and concrete than you might expect.

Some definitions I have heard are:

“an aha moment”
“a trend or undiscovered need that we have the capacity to fill.”

This is a central challenge.

The industry is tasked with delivering insights, but it has not clearly defined the term or broken it into a taxonomy.

The strongest attempt at insight definition and taxonomy is in Smith and Raspin’s “Creating Market Insight.”

Here the authors:

1. Use the VRIO framework to define an insight
2. Create a rough draft of an insight taxonomy based on 3 dimensions: continuous vs. discontinuous, narrow vs. broad, and transient vs. lasting. My view is that this taxonomy can be improved based on anticipated vs. unanticipated findings.

These are good starting points and ones I hope the industry builds on.

Maybe someday at TMRE we’ll have a universal insight taxonomy that we use to discuss our business at a more detailed level.

It was all strategic foresight.

Tom, with his focus on the trends driving our futures, represents one aspect of where I believe market research is headed.

Luckily, I had the opportunity to talk with Tom before his presentation and as luck would have it he is heavily involved in strategic foresight and the Institute for the Future.

One discipline or methodology that Tom utilizes is tracking macroforces by meta analysis of books. Some of the more interesting trends he sees from the meta analysis are a reappraisal of capitalism along ecological and social justice lines, the rise of creativity as a key force (see Daniel Pink’s “A Whole New Mind”), and a better understanding of the consumer (via behavioral economics and positive psychology).

One of Tom’s more provocative questions was what business rules are or will replace Michael Porter’s famed five forces. I think we’re already seeing an opposing paradigm emerge along mesh business lines utilizing ad hoc collaboration, open networks, shared purpose and community engagement based on transparent reputation. On this last point Tom presented what Coca-Cola is doing with community and environmental groups to reduce waste (energy and water) and shrink environmental footprint while increasing profits.

Tom closed with something many of us have been mulling for a while now.

What will a brand be in the future?

My contention is that brands will change dramatically from “me” to “we”, from status to purpose, and from consumption to particpation. Tom argues along the same lines – that the emergent brand is based on “societal construction.” It’s the “should brand.”

I’m particularly looking forward to Saatchi & Saatchi’s presentation on the evolution of wellness and Coca-Cola’s presentation on “how macroforces are reshaping relationships, roles and the very idea of ‘consumer.’”

With all this thinking about macro-trends one excellent source for futurecasting is the Institute for the Future, based here in California (Palo Alto). the Institute recently published their futures map (2010 map of the decade). I highly recommend taking a look at it here. The map charts four alternative futures – (1) One step ahead of disaster, (2) Sustainability, (3) collapse, (4) transformation. It analyzses these four scenarios across several dimensions. The most interesting to me is the “water ecology” dimension.

Water is the next oil. Some of the more interesting water-driven outcomes in these futures are “water footprinting” and other conservation efforts. If the Institute is right, then beverage marketers, hydrated CPG companies, appliance manufacturers, lawn and garden companies, detergent companies and many others will be impacted. The convergence of many trends here (scarcity + ecological sensitivity among GenY + the LOHAS psychographic) could drive some significant change in how marketers and marketing researchers think about products with water in them.

It’s good to see more emphasis at TMRE on culture and trends. I suspect this emphasis will grow as MR becomes even more forward leaning and futures oriented.