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.

Both offer knowledge management archiving services that are accessed by a custom-built interface. Nunwood’s “Fizz” is a good example.

Historically market research has been defined by data scarcity. The market research function was needed to go out and collect scarce data and analyze it.

That’s not the problem anymore.

Now the problem is largely sifting through massive amounts of existing data flows and turning this data into information, knowledge, insight and strategy.

Based on this logic, it seems fairly obvious that one part of the future of market research is an insights management system.

Note that I didn’t write “knowledge management system.”

I think a knowledge management system is simply the minimum level needed. Instead, the internal MR department needs a robust insights management system accessed by a centralized interface.

At least three things will be needed to make this work:

1. A real taxonomy for insights so that they can be catalogued and related to each other in an archive.

2. An interface that pulls multiple data flows together, including point of sale data, insight communities, an insights archive, complaint or call center data, social media listening reports, syndicated reports and the traditional tracking studies.

3. A mindshift from a sole focus on primary data collection to a more holistic approach that utilizes multiple data flows.

Unfortunately, some in this space are completely over-promising by stating that the only thing (or close to the only thing) a company needs is to harness the data it already has. This would be almost accurate if we lived in a static competitive environment without new innovation or emerging consumer needs. But, we live in the opposite of that world. The fact is there will always be a need to engage in a discussion with customers, asking them questions and plotting out emerging trends and needs. Existing marketplace data is unlikely to give us the kind of game-changing data that one competitor can use to create entirely new markets or disruptive innovation. But, given (a) the massive increase in data and (b) the typically uncoordinated use of existing primary research, I expect insights management systems to explode in the near future.

We’ve had some great presentations from the nominees today.

As one might expect, the speech was heavily future and trends focused. So much of what he discussed (especially America’s hyperfocus on the future and “future tense”) was reminiscent of David Brooks’ book “On Paradise Drive.”

Although the audience was treated to a number of wonderfully funny nuggets, like “social notworking” (time wasted at work refreshing our social media presence), Tchong outlined several useful “ubertrends”:

1. Our digital lifestyle (merger of humans with their technology)
2. Time compression
3. Technology-created control freaks (eg expecting immediate responses to email)

From this presentation, there were several interesting learnings.

The first is that this emerging peer to peer world where information is abundant will create a highly transparent society and market. Bad customer service will haunt companies much more in the future.

The second is that while these are ubertrends, there are always countertrends in reaction. For example, there is significant time compression today, but profitable opportunities in slower experiences, products and services (eg yoga).

The next is augmented reality. One early example of this phenomenon is layar. Now imagine this technology enhancing our context of more than just physical locations. Imagine this technology giving us additional context about people, the salesperson on the shop floor, a product in our hands (using RFID) etc. This will take transparency to the next level.

Finally, a great question to ask in the course of this discussion of the future and change is what doesn’t change. For example, rituals are culture conservers. How can marketers embed their product within timeless (or emerging rituals)? How can marketers create new rituals that resist change and support their product? Sometimes we can lose sight of things that don’t change when we focus on trends too closely.

The answer?

One very large MROC.

In what was easily the most interesting nuts and bolts presentation of the day, the folks in room 306A were treated to an in-depth view of the 15,000+ BBC Global Minds MROC created by Vision Critical.

Key takeaways:

1. An MROC is a perfect fit for the creation of a tight feedback community spanning the globe.
2. The client (BBC) accepted the tradeoff of rapid, self-selected, directional data at a lower cost relative to vastly more expensive, low incidence (but representative) survey research.
3. Community members engage in 4+ community acitvities per month.
4. The MROC GUI (called ReactionPlus) gives community members 10 instant-reactions (engaged, happy, curious, annoyed, excited, confused, bored, amused, disturbed and tuneout) that they can punch in real-time as they watch streaming news coverage. The result is a chart that looks much like an EKG with peaks and valleys registering things like excitement, annoyance, etc. If this sounds familiar, it should. It is the 21st century equivalent of dial testing.
5. These instant-reaction words were based on a large survey of open ended, volunteered words connecting to the BBC viewing experience. Ultimately, the number of words was narrowed to between 6 and 10, but the interface with 10 words gave community members greater choice and more enjoyment.

Moving away from the specific case and toward the general learning, this illustrates the strength and potential of insights communities. I anticipate MROCs becoming ubiquitous.

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.

Instead of utilizing a massive intake survey to screen MROC participants and build rigorous demographic profiles, utilize a small intake survey and then add additional demographic questions after the community is launched. This can be done with brief, one question, demographic surveys once the community is launched.

For a great case study, see Dawn’s review of the SolarWinds work here. Dawn detailed this in depth this morning.

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.

On the flight from Washington I had some time to think and finish reading Rachel Botsman’s new book on “the rise of collaborative consumption.”
Botsman paints a sweeping landscape of consumers cooperating in their purchase and use of products. It’s an excellent read.

Her book makes me think that one way to look at the change coming to market research is to segment these changes by endogenous change coming from within marketing research and exogenous change coming from the outside (something Smith and Raspin in their book Creating Market Insight call the “remote environment”.

As an industry we have quite a bit to be proud of, especially when it comes to recent innovation (MROCs, mobile, neuromarketing, the stuff BrainJuicer seems to cook up daily, etc.), but it certainly does feel as though a significant piece of the change is coming from outside.

And, when it comes to external change, the world Botsman paints suggests some extreme levels of change in product innovation (crowdsourced), branding (from status to purpose and me to we), product usage (shared) and product lifecycle (longer). It’s no exageration to say that the future she paints would turn marketing and marketing research upside down.

If Botsman is right, then those of us in marketing research are more likely than ever to run/manage/moderate insights communities (MROCs) and design communities (see HYVE). We’ll track the discussion of purpose-driven community clusters in real time, tightening the feedback loop.

If she’s right, brands will become much more about shared purpose and passion. And, they will be built or destroyed by a corporation’s reputation. But, this reputation element will no longer be ethereal. As I’ve noted before and as Botsman states in her book, by the end of the decade we are likely to have a kind of online reputational currency for both people and corporations (she calls these “reputation bank accounts”).