After a series of great discussions with several peers in New York, I began thinking about the MROC name and brand. With my flight delayed on the way home and with time to kill in the Rochester airport, I came to the conclusion that we need to change the name.

Why?

First, I am not a fan of the phrase “market research” for many reasons. This terminology focuses on the physical act of collecting data instead of the value or benefit. And, the temporal focus is the past and present instead of future behavior.

The word “online” is descriptive, but is going to feel a bit dated very soon. Of course it’s online. Everything is online.

I think a better name is “ICs”, standing for “insights communities”. This new name gets the product category out of the stodgy “MR” box, is much shorter, and sounds like “I see”.

Alternative naming conventions might play off of “social”, hooking into social media, or “streaming”, as opposed to periodic primary research that follows a more episodic approach.

For those in MR who have been under a rock for the past few years and are not fully aware of this qualitative research tool, her three page piece is an excellent primer. I also think it is a good primer for MR buyers/users who may legitimately not be very aware of this tool.

Three points on Mount’s article:

1. She addresses the issue of MROCs as closed social community for research purposes (walled garden) vs. open social networks used largely for product evangelism. This is an important distinction that I fear may be getting lost.

2. She addresses the distinction between MROCs and online panels (convenience samples). Just the other day I heard a peer in the industry liken MROCs to online panels. There are large and fairly obvious differences.

3. I didn’t see anything about the potential pitfalls of MROCs in her piece. This is fine. They’re a wonderful new tool. But, two weaknesses spring to mind. The first is that MROCs require an ongoing commitment that other, project based, research methods do not. MROCs can die of neglect. Unless the participants are being engaged regularly, the community dwindles and dies. The skill of a community manager (a position that I envision many current “project directors” transitioning to) is critical. The second is that MROCs can offer a far too easy substitute for more robust, quantitative research, even when the quantitative research is needed. This is why I believe in-house MR leaders need to push back when-if internal clients push for the easy way out (throw a poll question on the MROC) instead of investing in quantitative data.

Mount’s article is a must read and may be a solid educational tool for MR leaders to use with their non-researcher clients.

MROC Variant 1 is what we think of as a traditional MROC built exclusively (usually by Communispace, Passenger, etc.) for a client with the members coming exclusively from the client’s current customer base (raving fans typically).

MROC Variant 2 is (will be) MROCs built around particular affinity groups and consumer types and accessed like an omnibus product by many different marketers. In this case the MROC or panel company will “rent” access to the group to many buyers.

MROC Variant 3 is (will be) like lockerz or expotv .

It will be a much larger type of MROC which we might label as something else entirely – possibly a OECLS (Open Ended Customer Listening Service) or a “megapanel.”

Several things will distinguish variant 3:

1. Size. These online communities could be huge.
2. Ownership. They may not be owned by traditional MR players.
3. Multiple Interests. They are likely to include members with many different interests.
4. Fun. They will be more fun than a traditional MROC and will force Variant 1 to build in games and other attractions.

Where does Variant 3 end up? One possible future is a global “cool” community operating by member invitation only that enables trendspotters to identify the most bleeding edge trends in fashion, entertainment and consumption in real time. Members would post videos of their newest purchases and offer dreamscapes on what they want to do with friends or family in the summer. Who knows, they might even discover the catchy tunes of LatinoArabia music.

Most MROCs are currently (a) private and (b) built around a shared purchase (or interest).

This type of MROC is a massive open-air bazaar for product testing etc. built around many different product affinity groups.

It also takes full advantage of short, consumer created, video vignettes examing the product and that consumer’s reaction.

I can’t imagine this tool replacing more secure MROCs, but it could prove useful to researchers.

It is worth a read.

Summary:

1. Start with a clear purpose in mind. So obvious, but yet so vital considering how infrequently it is done in organizations.
2. Set clear screening criteria for community members. The authors assert that in an “online group” of 100, one person will create content, ten will comment and 89 will simply read. Therefore, quality is critical.
3. Communicate the end goal and parameters of co-creation to keep people focused on task.
4. Create an open and non-competitive environment.
5. Motivate community members based on their affinity, interests and need for creative outlets. Do NOT rely solely on financial incentives.
6. Maintain quality by giving members the tools they need, gauging each member’s contributions, remove the unproductive, and keep the community busy with new tasks, directives and stimuli.

These recommendations seem to generally mesh with others regarding MROC best practice, but feel more specific to innovation. In fact, there is a managed element to these recommendations that is reminiscent of Delphi Panels (though not iterative).

To sum up, Nick Coates, research director at Promise states that, “the mainstreaming of online is good for us (his firm), because we work with online communities. But traditional market research agencies are likely to find the going increasingly tough.”

July’s RSM Research Professionals Survey has all the details.

Key takeaways:

1. 6 in 10 reseach professionals have seen their budgets decline.
2. Budgets were expected to shrink by 3.5% between July and December 2009.