My qualitative toolbox has grown with current online technologies. And the possibilities promised by evolving technologies are endless.

It’s intriguing to contemplate how these changes influence not only the way I might do research, but no doubt, the way I think about and frame research issues.

Never a dull moment, that’s for sure.

But exciting as it is, it’s always a good idea to stop and think. And here’s something to think about…

Lunch

You catch up with a friend (in real life) for lunch. You talk about this, that, and the other.

While between catch ups you talk on the phone, email each other often, are Facebooked, and have been members of the same online community for over 5 years, sitting down, face to face, puts a whole different angle on your understanding of their life. It provides a completely different context.

Watching their face light up when you ask after their kids, seeing the micro-frown when you discuss topic X, and observing their extended search through their handbag to avoid discussing topic Y; these are all things you could never pick up online.

The conversation takes paths that your online conversation couldn’t have travelled (and this works the other way too, but stay with me here…).

Take this into a research context, and you realise that while you can get some (often surprisingly) deep and passionate reads on emotion through written words, images etc via online methods, there are times when you’re just going to need more.

Springboards

The nuances of body language provide the researcher with cues and real life stimulus. A pause, a frown, half a giggle; all invaluable springboards to discussion.

And this dynamic is something that, quite patently, offline research can provide over and above an online dialogue.

I stress, this is only important if it’s important; it depends solely on the task at hand.

But for the most part, I like a side of offline context to go with my analysis.

And because of the above, I don’t think qualitative market research methods will change quite as fast as one might be led to desire or believe.

At least not the ones that provide the relatively comprehensive insights I need in order to do my job well.

No doubt market research is evolving. As it does. And as it should.

And a natural and obvious part of that evolution seems to be the move to online qualitative research methodologies; eg qualitative content analysis, bulletin board focus groups, online communities etc.

But is online research necessarily the best or only way forward? Is traditional (offline) research on its way to the research graveyard?

I don’t think so.

For the record, I like online qualitative research (speaking for the most part, with bulletin board focus groups in mind here).

It’s fun to do (albeit time and labour intensive). Most research respondents who participate seem to enjoy it. And importantly, the output, for the task at hand, has been pointed and relevant.

In some cases an online qualitative approach is the optimal methodology. When you need to reach otherwise impossible to reach individuals, generate interaction between typically un-collaborative individuals etc, it’s worth its weight in gold.

But let’s not put the cart before the horse. Let’s take a reality check.

Online for everyone?

Not all people are like us.

We (you and I and other readers of this blog) are not particularly representative of any given market. We’re a highly skewed group in terms of our attitudes, our communication skills and our love (?!) of things collaborative and co-creative.

Believe me. Not all people are like us.

I’m reminded of this every time I do (offline) group discussions or depth interviews.

I’m reminded of this every time I talk to my relatively less-online-focussed clients or friends.

I’m reminded of this every time I walk down the street and see people talking, thinking or engaging in any one of the many offline activities that make up the bulk of their lives.

Neilsen (I’m guessing inadvertently) help me to make my point. According to a recent study, Australians* are spending a whopping 16.1 hours a week online. Up from 13.7 hours in 2007.

But one week = 168 hours.

That means they spend 151.9 hours offline. *And that figure was based on a sample of internet users.

Which suggests that we’re not quite at the point where online conversations are a part of everyone’s everyday life. Not by a long shot.

And that brings me back to the important issue of sample. Are we willing to accept the (well documented) skews that come part and parcel with online samples? While in specific cases an online skew won’t be an issue, more often than not, it will.

So, as much as we might like to, we simply can’t take all our research online (yet). The vast majority of the people we want to understand just don’t hang out there.

(Part two coming soon).

I’ve been quiet. I’ve been thinking.

A click around the online market research community (oh the imminent irony!) tells me that, apparently, market research is – or should be – changing. And I mean really changing; as in beyond all recognition.

In a nutshell, and broadly generalising, here’s the gist;

1. Traditional (offline) research is becoming irrelevant

2. We need to find new ways to engage with  consumers, respondents, research participants

3. In the age of collaboration and co-creation, market research online communities are the way forward

Hmmm…

I started thinking about this here and here.

Over the next few posts, I’m going to look at points 1-3 in a bit more depth. Stay tuned for the possibly uncomfortable ride…

So after a slight diversion, it’s back to finish off my thoughts on advertising concept research.

I’ve talked about the importance of capturing un-considered responses and this is my main issue with researching advertising concepts online. There’s simply too much time for respondents to think.

Between the time you show them the advertising, and the time it takes to read and process the question, they’re going to have time to think. And then they’ll have (unlimited) time to craft their responses. And edit them. And polish them.

In effect, responses are likely to be sanitised beyond usefulness. They won’t give you any sense of whether, and/or how, the advertising is actually working or not.

Tools

There’s a whole raft of tools available for researchers that purport to enable online advertising concept research. These tools allow ‘participants’ to tag or mark up the stimulus, eg proposed copy, website etc.

I can see why this idea has appeal; within the co-creation paradigm, it scores a 9/10, right?

Yes, it does. A wonderful tool to use if you want to involve your geographically-dispersed design team. But you’ll struggle to get anything useful from your non-design-schooled research participants.

Why? Because the focus will be on the stimulus, not the concept.

The ‘design’ tweaks respondents make will be just that; design tweaks. And are they really going to do a better job than your design team?

Without an opportunity to explore respondents’ reasons for their tags and mark ups, red herrings are all you’ll be eating for dinner.