Thoughts on marketing research - in no particular order...

I ran a major marketing research company for 9 years, although I'm far from a market researcher - actually, I was pretty cynical about market research in general going in because I saw clearly what it could become and what it seems to be developing into.

To give a little background - when I went into the marketing research industry so short a time ago, it was still an industry populated by giants and visionaries - Angus Reid was still Angus Reid, Taylor Nelson was still a fabulous independent, and Martin Goldfarb was still running the original Goldfarb - the one that meant so much. When "globalization" became the buzzword of the late 90's, an explosion of acquisition took place - a frenzy of consolidation into large conglomerates that pushed most of those visionaries to the side and, as the beancounters and cost cutters got in, moved the industry into a period of commoditization. From where I'm sitting - it got safe. It became corporate. It became an industry dominated by factory type operations churning out very good, but very safe, ideas - and because of their size, those large firms had a large investment in certain methodologies and technologies to protect - big phone rooms, big CATI investments, big investments in process oriented reductive quantitative products, and big investments in focus group facilities styled after a 1960's board room.

What's the problem with all that? Well, I suppose nothing, if all you want is to find out is a simple answer to a simple question. In reality, there is some fabulous work being done across the marketing research industry in social research, political and opinion polling, in health care and many other areas. But what I find missing from marketing research - the part of it that relates to the world of marketing - is just that - the marketing part.

Too much emphasis on advanced statistical techniques as an end unto themselves as firms look for higher margin work (having commoditized the rest), too little emphasis on real marketing insight, too little willingness to move off methods that probably no longer work (if they ever did) and a dogged persistence in thinking that qualitative and quantitative research are two different, mutually exclusive things.

A few years ago, I noticed the marketing research industry splitting into two camps - the big conglomerates, the 'factory' type operations, who are tremendously efficient machines and who dominate the industry through their size and control over it's key institutions, and the 'boutique' firms, who differentiated themselves either by specialization (not a bad thing, but vulnerable) or by being 'insight' providers - in essence, allow the commoditization of the process parts and provide a high level of consulting advice (the interesting ones).

There's a third type today, and it's coming in under the radar of the industry. That is - the small, integrated marketing services firm that provides broad marketing advice, usually starting at the brand level, and working it's way down to very actionable strategic and sometimes tactical advice, using certain market research techniques as a support and platform for their studies - but what's different about these firms is - they have integrated the research and internalized it in their process in a holistic manner, they don't sell market research as a side option, they don't call themselves market research fims, they aren't members of the market research association (but they are members of the marketing associations) - they are evolving completely under the radar of the research industry - and in my humble opinion, this might be the next wave.

After all, there's only one reason why marketing research exists, and that is, as a component of the strategic planning process. And the biggest problem today is, the factory operations that churn out studies, but don't have enough connection to the issue that matters the most.

The big conglomerates will always exist and will keep getting bigger. The smarter ones - IPSOS, Maritz, Leger - are becoming integrated operations that build on their various component synergies. There will always be good specialty firms, the ones that can't differentiate themselves won't survive or at best will remain flat. But the biggest growth is likely to be outside the mainstream.

Interesting thought - some of the big conglomerates have been reluctant or slow to get into the internet, and have hesitated to build strong qualitative divisions. Why? Because both those areas are difficult to reduce to a process, difficult to control, and operate in somewhat uncharted territory. But in both cases, that's where the insight business is still evolving and bringing out new concepts.

And I don't buy in to the argument that it's the client's fault, you know, the old 'well, the client doesn't get it' line - sure, it's true, the client doesn't get it - if they did - they wouldn't need to hire someone to give them advice, would they? We need to respect the clients and have a professional obligation to gently educate them and use our knowledge to orient them towards the right approaches and solutions. The firms that aren't doing that are just turning out reports, and one day, the pendulum will swing back towards the ones who have the vision - and unfortunately for the research industry today that is still focused on getting bigger and more efficient, too many of those are quietly developing outside that industry - and are coming up fast.

Next time I might actually talk about what I really think is wrong with marketing research today! Thanks for getting through these rambling thoughts.