Research as scapegoat
From this event report on the Marketing Society website it sounds like market research took a real bashing from UK marketers once again (along with their usual agonising about arguing with finance directors and bitching about not being on the board - is it any wonder I didn't bother to go this year?).
On the research front, the usual themes came up:
1) Most research artificially disconnects us from our consumers (Roisin Donnelly, P&G)
2) Most research is reactive and focuses on the past not the future (James Dyson)
And the usual answers were offered:
1) Donnelly's answer is to spend extended periods of time (a month?) with consumers.
2) Dyson's was to ignore research altogether and just focus on the technology.
Market research is, of course, never going to provide definitive answers for marketers and they are wrong to expect that it will.
Our modern research techniques were derived from the social sciences of sociology, psychology and economics whose practitioners have a much harder time getting to answers than their opposite numbers in the natural sciences.
Whilst the natural sciences of physics, biology and chemistry study observable matter, social scientists study humans whose observable behaviour (what they say and do) can rarely be relied on to tell the full story.
As most social scientists will readily acknowledge, humans are difficult to understand because they have free will, are often irrational and have incredible imaginations which are capable of creating multiple alternative versions of reality.
But just because the answers we get back are subjective it doesn't not mean that we should give up conducting research altogether as Dyson suggests. We have a lot to learn from spending more time with our consumers as Roisin Donnelly suggests.
The real issue with research, of course, is that it is very expensive and time consuming to do it properly.







