Research mistakes are preventable
Tom Dougherty, CEO – Stealing Share
25 April 2017
Research mistakes. No excuses.
Making research mistakes is easier than ever. And these blunders can mangle and mislead brands. Especially brands that are looking for opportunities to rebrand. It’s best not to guess. It’s always better to know.
Thinking you know what you know is a bad place to begin. Research mistakes are plentiful when you don’t challenge your own thinking.
Here is an example of what I mean. For years, CATI studies (Computer Assisted Telephone Surveys) were the gold standard in market research. Nothing substituted for this methodology. But CATI research is expensive.
Not everything is what it seems
Today, CATI studies are harder to field. And not just because they are expensive. How many of you have a land-line telephone? That group of dinosaurs shrinks every day. We don’t need them any longer.
Many researchers tell you they compensate for that shrinking population by including cell phone numbers. A good idea in theory.
But, tell me, how often do you answer a call on your cell phone from an unknown caller? Worse still, an unknown caller from out of the area?
Research mistakes happen when we make assumptions
Methodology matters when it comes to projectable research. Using flawed methodology clouds results. Your research study can’t be self-selecting. The goal is to eliminate bias and get a fair representation of the target.
So, randomization equals great research. And being double-blinded. But it also relies on what researchers call incidence. Incidence is the percentage of randomly selected subjects that complete the study. The lower the incidence, the higher the margin of error.
“Research methodology is changing. It is keeping up with changes in demographics and privacy. What worked three years ago is outdated today.”
This make sense. Common sense.
Think about this for a moment. If over half of the possible target audience refuses to complete the study, there may be a bias for those that do. Once a large percentage of respondents refuse to take the study your randomized sampling is anything but random.
To compensate for this, we pay many respondents an incentive to complete the study. This used to work well. The researcher tells you upfront that you are paid for your thoughts.
It fails if you can’t get through
But you’re sunk if your target audience does not use a land-line or won’t answer a caller they don’t recognize. No amount of incentive can compensate for an inability to break through the barriers of availability.
On a recent CATI study, 75% of population were over the age of 65. Tell you anything?
Panel studies are now the GOLD Standard
You can predict the success and value in panel studies by the confidence you have in the panel itself. We have found them more accurate than CATI studies in many categories. And we are quickly finding them preferable in general population studies too.
It’s a new world in research. Research mistakes occur when we don’t challenge our own assumptions.
Ataribox Tom Dougherty, CEO - Stealing Share 18 July 2017 Ataribox is perfect for this moment in time I’ll repeat just as I have said in the past, “I am by no means a video gamer.” But I do know Atari and have an interest in Ataribox. But my lack of gaming skills...
Time rebranding Tom Dougherty, CEO - Stealing Share 17 July 2017 Time rebranding is fools gold with name change News reports say there’s a Time rebranding effort afoot. And I think it’s fool’s gold to think that will make the company (and its magazines) more relevant....
Boston Scientific Tom Dougherty, CEO - Stealing Share 13 July 2017 Boston Scientific TV spot doesn't create preference There are few, if any, companies that brand products and companies in the medical device category more than Stealing Share. We’ve worked with...