When I was a part of the advertising circuit, I championed exploratory qualitative consumer and market research. To me that was perhaps the only tiny window I had of meeting with real consumers in flesh and blood in an otherwise packed schedule of an ad executive. The joy was in trying to deduce what lay beneath and trying to cull out fresh nuggets of truth we called insights. After a decade of meeting consumers from behind one way mirrors and getting to know them better through the omnipresent lens of the cc tv camera, I concluded that research agencies were just not making the most of the deified presence of consumers - the ultimate end users of our products and services and the unsuspecting recipients of our fruits of labour - the final piece of communication. There were ways of engaging with them to draw out the most candid and unguarded response. Having experienced enough of such arm-chair familiarization sessions with consumers, across different markets and socio economic backgrounds, I decided to engage with them directly by opening a diagnostics and consumer research firm which claims to have the key to their minds and hopefully their hearts.
Armed with refreshingly different techniques to engage with them, I thought I really had the key that could open many locks. In the bid to uncover fresher nuggets, I disinterred a cesspool of lies that were consumers. When business started pouring in steadily I realized that I was increasingly wasting my creative techniques on a bunch of people who had just experienced them a month back. This bunch of people were what we call "trained respondents" and they are such a malaise to the industry. Always available to participate in a discussion even at the nth hour, they will never let you down when it comes to group attendance. But when it comes to group participation, it is almost as if they hold the recruitment agencies and the research agencies at ransom. Involvement in any discussion is directly proportionate to the menu of snacks and dinner served to them. Not to mention sticking to the time limit of 30-45 minutes only plus of course the gift they take home. Sometimes the gifts are dictated by the respondents themselves and given the back slapping terms they are on with the recruiters, they are almost always appeased. And at the back of what these people say, the fate of a brand or communication launch is decided and marketers continue to make million dollars worth decisions on what I so far thought was the voice of god in marketing. What a pack of lies they are.
They change their names in case you are good at remembering their names. I have had boys change their look because I could remember faces quite well. And the acid test came when respondents started actively enquiring the name of the research agency they would be meeting. My problem of getting repeat respondents was being solved by the respondents themselves. They declined to participate in any session that my company organized. And my research company was 'banned' by most respondents. As my company was the only company who had the ill repute of turning out respondents from a discussion if the face or name matched with the photo-profile of all respondents it had met in the last 1 year. While I looked at it as a huge relief, clients saw it as inept recruitment. So I turned to all such recruitment agencies who were willing to knock on fresh doors to get real untrained consumers for my research projects. And by doing that I guess I unwittingly invited a further ban from recruitment agencies as not one was willing to do that.
Was it time to close my business? Looked like it. Till I realized that my search for truth can never be successful however deep I dig into the bag of lies. The bag had to be made of truly unsuspecting consumers. And they need to be lured by things other than a meal ticket or a token gift. In fact they should not be lured at all. If these are times of the consumer becoming the prosumer, why not apply that in research as well? And that is what I did. A snowballing exercise within a group of consumers who were willing to take time out to participate in a discussion on brands - the type who are willing to experiment differently in new areas.
Prosumers are a different species of animal from the common consumer. The prosumer is a proactive consumer who is internally referenced and takes pride about thinking for himself or herself. The prosumer is experimental and is usually the first or the second person to try new products. And this limited prosumer set within my social reference has today spawned myriads of groups willing to participate in a discussion as long as it is engaging and will not use them again and again. It is more like buzz or word of mouth referencing. The challenge hence is to really make the sessions brain tickling and enaging that people do not hesitate in recommending others and encouraging them to participate.
That is how the search for true insights will never lose its sheen. The excitement has to be a two way street. And if the research agency doesn't capture the imagination of these self willed consumers, you can be sure, nor will the product/concept/communication under study ever will.
Recent Comments