In Conversation with
Nik Nanos
Canadian public opinion pollster Nik Nanos talks about his career in marketing research, about the changes he has seen in technology, the industry and its methodologies, about the concept of triangulation, and about the future of marketing research.
Anne Marie Gabriel
S P EC IAL F E AT U R E
Thank you for agreeing to this interview for Vue. You mentioned three themes you wanted to develop in this article on marketing research – first from the perspective of a practitioner, then as a business owner, and also as past president, board member, and fellow of MRIA looking to the future and to changes ahead.
About 25 years ago, when I started in the marketing research industry, I really thought I’d be spending my career doing telephone surveys and focus groups. But when I look at the type of work that we are doing now, it’s pretty clear, from a professional viewpoint, that the methodologies have become more dynamic, more complex, and far more interesting. Much of this has to do with the advent of the Internet, not only as a vehicle to reach out to respondents, but also as a very powerful addition to the researcher’s tool kit. We are doing more triangulation of multiple sources of data and providing a higher level of strategic advice to clients. In the past, a client had a problem; researchers did primary research and developed solutions. Now what’s happening is that we are doing primary research (phone, Internet, qual) along with secondary desk or data research, business intelligence research, what’s happening on the Internet – all these different intelligence sources are pulled together for a more complex and fulsome picture. It’s robust, richer for the client, and more interesting for the practitioner.
the best and worst example is SurveyMonkey. Whereas organizations in the past retained a research firm, some now experiment or try to conduct their own surveys in-house. This self-help model poses great risks for clients, in terms of the reliability of the results. It is the equivalent of legal or medical self-help, where people go online and diagnose themselves. Clients should beware of such options. What I have seen recently is that the pendulum is swinging back, because of issues related to proper questionnaire design and the interpretation of results. Ironically, after one or two experiments with do-it-yourself surveys, in my experience, clients return to researchers; and they actually have a better understanding of the value we provide. The other risk or threat raised by the technology has to do with standards. When any industry experiences powerful technological change – like the onset of the Internet to deploy research – it’s a bit of a Wild West phenomenon. There’s a rush to be the first mover. As new technologies emerge, we need new and relevant standards to manage these tools. Part of the problem is that the do-it-yourself movement, coupled with technology, leads to greater risk and the devaluing of research in general. Standards are going to be increasingly important to the industry as a whole, and also to MRIA as the keeper of standards.
What I have seen recently is that the pendulum is now swinging back. After one or two experiments with do-it-yourself surveys, clients return to researchers, and they actually have a better understanding of the value we provide. Please elaborate on what you mean by “triangulation.”
In my opinion, a higher level of complex triangulation of various sources of data is the future for our industry. We might, for example, do a traditional survey (either online or by phone) for a specific customer base. Then we would do an analysis of respondent behaviour, based on other transactional or activity data that the client has (transactions for example). While we’re comparing – triangulating – those data sets, we’re also adding focus group research into the mix to hear what people like to do; and then we also look to the Internet or what competitors are doing in the marketplace. All of this results in a rich intelligence gathering output and something in which one can have a very high level of confidence. Does the new technology pose greater risks or challenges?
There are at least two major risks or threats related to the technology. One is the do-it-yourself phenomenon. Probably
How do you convince clients that the added value of triangulation is worth it?
I ask most clients, “How important is this piece of research to your organization?” And their answer to that question will give us a good idea as to how much they are willing to invest in research. The best example would be if a business is making a major decision around its product mix or the services it provides to customers. Then, it will want to invest the money in order to have all the benefits that a marketing researcher can bring, in terms of a diversity of data sources – quantitative research, focus groups, data mining, and competitive research. However, if it’s a low-grade priority, businesses are more likely to procure the research in a way that’s akin to buying a pencil: they’ll just go to the lowest-cost provider and not be engaged in the methodology. That approach makes the research more transactional than transformative in nature. The other thing about technological change is that, in the industry, we really have to watch out for new players from vue December 2011
13
S P EC IAL F E AT U R E
outside our research family who will try to eat our lunch. Because the future of the industry places us at the crossroads of data and intelligence gathering, it also means that there will be other interests – from ad agencies through to communications firms, to people who provide advice on Internet strategies, to management consultants – who would be looking to attempt to deliver a comparable service to marketing researchers. One of the big challenges in the long term is to define the role of the researcher in a way that keeps us at the crossroads as the key players, so we don’t get crowded out by other professions. I believe we are in a lucrative business field, and will continue to be so. What is the value proposition for gathering the intelligence?
In the future, I expect the value proposition – for the new entrants and other “I” players under our industry umbrella – to be about standards. The association is very well positioned to take many of the standards we have developed for traditional research and apply them to newer research methodologies. Standards can be the main draw, followed by accreditation. Here, MRIA has to make sure that its curriculum continues to reflect all the new areas important to the industry, that it remains a place for dialogue on the standards of intelligence gathering, and that its members keep providing top quality advice to clients. My personal perspective is that we really have to embrace the “I” in MRIA, because it demonstrates that the industry is with, and not behind, the times. One of the brand vulnerabilities the industry has, is that many of our key members are perceived to be doing only phone surveys, and some members to be resistant to change. By embracing the intelligence portion of the MRIA mandate, we are not only with, but ahead of the times. MR now is a much more rewarding professional experience. We bring much more value and play a higher-level role at the corporate table. Let’s talk a bit about your experience with the media, changes seen over the past twenty years, and what is happening currently.
When I first started releasing polls in the 1980s, there would be two calls: a call from a journalist to do a substantive interview on the content of the survey; then a second call from another member of the media organization doing due diligence on the research, asking questions about the methodology, the sponsor, and so on. Twenty years ago, many media organizations had a dedicated polling partner, were involved with the research, and had a solid understanding and intimate knowledge of what they were buying. Fast forward 25 years and what we have now are fewer media partnerships with pollsters, more polls being put out as press releases, and fewer due diligence resources on the part of the media organizations. In the past, there was a type of 14
vue December 2011
internal brain trust, within a media organization, on any public opinion research it was writing a story on. They could properly analyse polls and decide which polls were worthy of being reported. However, today, almost any poll will be reported, because media organizations do not have the same resources and knowledge they had in the past, and there are multiple people writing articles on polls. If the media did the same due diligence on a poll released in the public domain as they would on a consumer product press release for a bar of soap, there would be a significant change in terms of which polls would be reported and how they would be reported. Not only do we need to engage and educate the media, but we also need to continue to educate research buyers and the general public. The importance of having active research buyers in MRIA is another critical element of a positive future for the association. Research buyers need to be engaged in the greater role that MRIA plays in providing education – on what is good about the research industry and on the function of research – because they are our ambassadors in the executive suite. On the quality front, we have the same challenge that many industries have, in that we have thousands of surveys produced every year, most executed exceptionally well. And yet when that one rogue or poorly designed survey gets out, then people think that it is indicative of how our industry operates. I think a broader dialogue with the key media players is needed, and a solid first step is to suggest that media treat a polling release as they would any other release and do the same due diligence. This would be a positive and very simple first step. Should MRIA set up a council of sage advisors on polls as a resource for the media ?
Setting up a council of sage advisors as a resource for the media, as had been suggested by some MRIA members, is a good idea. Many times, however, the devil is in the details. If there were such a council, I would be more comfortable if it were independent, if it were comprised of academics and retired researchers, and not those active in the craft. In this way, the council would be impartial and transparent, and it would have credibility on the issues facing the industry. What are your views on the decline of the traditional quant survey and its potential replacement by clients’ making sense of the constant streams of data?
We are in an era in which the judgment of researchers, in terms of selecting the right tool for the right job, is paramount. In the past, a few traditional options tended to be the catch-all tools. You have a problem? We’ll do a survey. Doing ads? We’ll do focus group testing. Surveys are not going the way of the dodo bird; however, I do believe the context in which surveys are employed will become narrower and more focused. When looking at all the possible data sources out
S P EC IAL F E AT U R E
there now, for clients it is like drinking from the fire hose, which is why marketing researchers are needed even more now – in order to make sense of it all. The internal data points are very rich in terms of understanding current customers, but not as rich for companies looking to grow market share, to develop new products, and to expand. In those areas, primary quantitative research, to reach beyond a company’s customer base, will continue to be very important. I believe the days of the survey as the single, catch-all solution are over. However, surveys will continue to have a significant strategic place as part of a research tool kit, particularly for any company that wants to expand or grow. Part of the solution to avoiding the trap of reliance on internal data, such as transaction information, is not to drink one’s own bath water. Otherwise, one risks feeding the same core customers and becoming strategically static, as opposed to growing share.
Think of it this way: Apple didn’t invent the computer, the Walkman (am I dating myself?), or the cellphone; but now Apple is at or near the forefront in all those technologies. You have to operate within the current business environment but prepare for the future. When the phone and focus groups dominated, we were strong in those areas. In retrospect, I don’t think there is anything we would have done differently. Our strategy has always been to provide a high quality offering that the market can take – not be ten years ahead of the market, because that ten-year-ahead market does not exist – yet to be nimble enough to show clients that we are on the cutting edge. Fundamentally, our organization is about three things: working on important and interesting projects, delivering quality innovative solutions, and remaining profitable.
What challenges have you experienced as a marketing research business owner?
I remember when I was national president of MRIA: We focused on getting our standards in place and then worked towards putting muscle on standards. Standards without muscle are merely a public relations exercise. We have to be careful on one point: The association cannot regulate the quality of work – no association can. We can only ensure that minimum standards are met and followed. Therefore, we need to be aware that complaints have to be linked to the meeting of standards. We should consider the idea of posting – in the public domain, for public scrutiny – the name of any member who does not abide by standards, who refuses to acknowledge or respond to the breaking of rules, or who refuses to change in order to comply with rules. It is critical, however, for MRIA to contextualize potential problems with the proper review and public posting process. Thousands of surveys are conducted each year, and only a handful are problematic. Keep confidence in the system, and stay transparent. Problems are the exception, and not the rule. Although it is not all sunshine, I am, overall, hopeful in terms of the future. The marketing research industry continues to be an exciting place to work, and many new things are happening.
One challenge in the past was avoiding Nanos team groupthink through the hiring of analysts with similar academic or professional backgrounds. In our firm, the importance of diversity on the research team has become even more paramount in the last decade, with all the changes occurring. Ten or fifteen years ago, we were recruiting out of universities and looking for sociologists and business grads to populate the research analyst jobs. In the old paradigm, that made complete sense; but now, with our growing complexity, we need a more diverse team with different educational backgrounds – people with geography, creative arts, technology, psychology, businesses and sociology. The profile in future will continue to be much more eclectic, but the binding elements will be an understanding of the research process and adherence to research standards. Researchers are, increasingly, becoming problem solvers with diverse data sets, and are no longer one-trick ponies (questionnaire designers who read tables and do an analysis). People generally thought that marketing researchers came out of a specific university stream, with a focus on mathematics. Now, researchers are more diverse in their skill sets and capabilities. If you knew then what you know now, what would you have done differently?
Not much. From a business perspective, you don’t necessarily want to be a trailblazer, because trailblazers don’t necessarily make money – they just blaze trails. Our strategy is usually to let others experiment as the first movers, and then Nanos comes in and does a better job.
Closing remarks around discipline, complaints and enforcement?
Nik Nanos, FMRIA, CMRP, is the president and CEO of Nanos Research. A recognized leader in the public opinion research industry in Canada, he is the official pollster for CTV News and The Globe and Mail. Nik has served as a national president of MRIA; he currently serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Professional Communication at McMaster University and as a research associate professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo. vue December 2011
15