MRIA VUE Magazine, January - February 2013

Canadian Publications Mail Agreement #40033932

vue

the magazine of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013

vue

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013

Cover: Scott Koenig In this month’s features: (L to R) Scott Koenig, David Stark, Chuck Chakrapani, Paul Gareau, Kristin Luck

SPECIAL FEATURE 10

INDUSTRY ETHICS – CONSUMER’S EYE VIEW MARKET RESEARCH Scott Koenig

FEATURES 14 THE IMPLICATIONS OF ‘DO NOT TRACK’ FOR RESEARCH David Stark 18 AU CONTRAIRE (6) BEING BETTER WORKS. DIFFERENTIATION, NOT SO MUCH Chuck Chakrapani, CMRP, FMRIA 22 EFFECTIVE ADVERTISING: HARNESSING THE POWER OF CREATIVITY

Paul Gareau 26 RESPONDENT PRIVACY IN THE (VERY) PUBLIC DIGITAL AGE Kristin Luck

COMMENTARY 4 Editor’s Vue 6 Letter from the Interim Executive Director

INDUSTRY NEWS 29 Research Registration System (RRS) 30 Wayback to the Future of Online Evidence 32 Qualitative Research Registry (QRR) 33 People and Companies in the News

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 35 MRIA to Revisit CMRP Maintenance of Certification Points (MCP) System

COLUMNISTS 36 CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING! 37 STANDARDS 37 BRAVE NEW WORLD 37 QUALITAS 38 INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY

VUE MAGAZINE IS PUBLISHED BY THE MARKETING RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE ASSOCIATION TEN TIMES A YEAR

ADDRESS The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association L’association de la recherche et de l’intelligence marketing

2600 Skymark Avenue, Bldg. 4, Unit 104 Mississauga, Ontario L4W 5B2 Tel: (905) 602-6854 Toll Free: 1-888-602-MRIA (6742) Fax: (905) 602-6855 Email: vue@mria-arim.ca Website: www.mria-arim.ca PRODUCTION: LAYOUT/DESIGN LS Graphics Tel: (905) 743-0402, Toll Free: 1-800-400-8253 Fax: (905) 728-3931 Email: info@lsgraphics.com CONTACTS CHAIR, PUBLICATIONS Stephen Popiel, PhD, CMRP, Vice President, GfK Custom Research NA Tel: (905) 277-2669 x 242 Mobile: (416) 358-5062 Stephen.Popiel@gfk.com EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Annie Pettit PhD, Chief Research Officer, Conversition (416) 273-9395 apettit@conversition.com MANAGING EDITOR Anne Marie Gabriel, MRIA amgabriel@mria-arim.ca ASSOCIATE EDITOR Christian Mueller, PhD, CMRP (647) 855-5088 christianmuellerphd@gmail.com COPY EDITOR Siegfried Betterman Interested in joining the Vue editorial team?

Contact us at vue@mria-arim.ca 2013 ADVERTISING RATES Frequent advertisers receive discounts. Details can be found by going to: www.mria-arim.ca/advertising/vue.asp Please email vue@mria-arim.ca to book your ad.

The deadline for notice of advertising is the first of the previous month.

All advertising material must be at the MRIA office on the 5th of the month.

Original articles and Letters to the Editor are welcome. Materials will be reviewed by the Vue Editorial Team. If accepted for publication, they may be edited for length or clarity and placed in the electronic archives on the MRIA website.

The opinions and conclusions expressed in Vue are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association.

Publishing Date: January/February © 2013.

All rights reserved. Copyright rests with the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association or the author.

All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association or the author.

All requests for permission for reproduction must be submitted to MRIA at publications@mria-arim.ca.

RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association L’Association de la recherche et de l’intelligence marketing 2600 Skymark Avenue, Bldg 4, Unit 104, Mississauga, Ontario L4W 5B2 Canadian Publications Mail Agreement #40033932 ISSN 1488-7320

COMMEN TARY / CO MME NTAI R E

Editor’s Vue Annie Pettit

In the last twenty-four hours, did you hold the door for someone, chew with your mouth closed, say please and thank you, or offer a colleague the last white chocolate chip macadamia nut cookie from the staff meeting?

There are no laws that say you must do these things, and yet you do. There are no written standards or guidelines that say you should do these things, and yet you do. You do them because they are the right thing to do, the nice thing to do, the respectful thing to do.

The marketing research space is no different. Everything about our business is predicated on the need and genuine desire to treat people participating in research with respect. We guard their anonymity the way new mommas guard their precious infants. We do our best not to ask too much of participants and to reward them fairly for the time they willingly give to us.

But all is not quiet on the research standards front, particularly among those who practise in the research space but who are not members of established research organizations. Being on the outside doesn’t mean that these newer industry entrants don’t respect research participants, but that they often hold very different views of what respect means. Indeed, those very different views exist within our own ranks.

Where exactly is the line between private and not private when we talk about social media data that incorporate names and contact details? Where exactly is the line when a client tries to meet focus group participants as they leave a facility? (Ouch!) And how do we respond to “If it’s not illegal, it’s fair game”?

I have my opinions, but I know they’re quite different from yours, and from each person who dares to share an opinion on the following pages. Be brave and challenge our authors with your own post on the MRIA blog. Don’t tread lightly. Tread with conviction.

Au cours des dernières vingt-quatre heures, avez-vous tenu la porte pour quelqu’un, mastiqué la bouche fermée, dit s’il vous plait et merci ou offert à un collègue le dernier biscuit aux noix de macadam et chocolat blanc à la réunion du personnel?

Aucune loi ne prescrit qu’il faut faire ces choses, pourtant on les fait. Il n’y a aucune norme ou ligne directrice indiquant qu’il faut les faire, pourtant on les fait. On les fait parce que c’est bon, gentil et respectueux de le faire.

C’en est ainsi également dans l’espace de la recherche marketing. Tout dans notre métier repose sur la nécessité et le désir réel de traiter avec respect les personnes qui participent à une recherche. Nous protégeons leur anonymat comme les nouvelles mamans protègent leur poupon chéri. Nous nous efforçons de ne pas trop en demander aux participants et de les récompenser équitablement pour le temps qu’ils ont consenti à nous offrir.

Mais tout n’est pas paisible sur le front des normes de la recherche, notamment chez ceux qui pratiquent dans l’espace de la recherche sans être membres d’organisations établies.

Le fait d’être de l’extérieur ne signifie pas que ces nouveaux venus dans l’industrie ne respectent pas les participants, mais ils ont souvent des points de vue très différents sur la signification de respect. En fait, ces mêmes points de vue divergents se retrouvent dans nos rangs.

Où se trouve exactement la démarcation entre ce qui est privé et ce qui ne l’est pas quand on parle de données provenant de médias sociaux qui incluent des noms et des détails sur les coordonnées? Où se trouve exactement la démarcation quand un client tente de rencontrer les participants à un groupe de discussion quand ils quittent le lieu de la rencontre? (Aïe!) Et comment doit-on réagir à « si ce n’est pas illégal, il n’y a pas de problème »?

J’ai mes opinions là-dessus, mais je sais qu’elles sont assez différentes des vôtres et de celles de chaque personne qui ose partager une opinion dans les pages qui suivent. Soyez braves et mettez les auteurs au défi avec vos propres billets dans le blogue de l’ARIM. N’y allez pas doucement. Allez-y avec conviction.

Annie Pettit PhD, Chief Research Officer / Directrice de la Recherche, Conversition Editor-in-Chief, Vue / Rédactrice en chef, Vue • Email: apettit@conversition.com • (416) 273-9395 • t @LoveStats 4

vue January/February 2013

Follow Twitter #NETGAIN7

THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS SPEAKERS AND DELEGATES SPONSORS PLATINUM

GOLD

SILVER

BRONZE

SPEAKERS Simon Chadwick Melanie Courtright Kevin Dang Prince De R. Scott Evans, PhD Adam Froman

Michel Girard Andrew Grenville Chris Gruber Paul McDonald Mike Rodenburgh Fabien Rolland

We thank the over 150 delegates who attended and look forward to staging another successful Net Gain 8.0 in 2014!

COMMEN TARY / CO MME NTAI R E

Message from the Interim Executive Director John Ball, CMRP

It is with great enthusiasm and excitement that I am able to reach out to you in my new role as interim executive director with MRIA. It is an honour for me to be able to bring some of my experience and perspective as “one of you” to the role of managing the association through some significant times of change in our industry. With Brendan’s departure in particular, I recognize that I have a strong legacy to uphold and maintain while bringing new ideas and perspective from someone who has mostly been on the receiving end of MRIA services and initiatives. As a past volunteer, I also know that we live and breathe on the backs of our various councils, chairs and committees; and having met with most of them, I pass on my sincere thanks to the myriad of professionals who have chosen to generously support the association with their contribution of time, experience, and energy.

In the short time I have been in this role (only a few weeks at the time of this writing), I have been involved in a few initiatives that I would like to share with you – initiatives that I feel are worthy of an update: an international meeting of ARIA that I attended in Uruguay; our current position on Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL); and a recently held event that I think best demonstrates the ideals of the theme of our upcoming conference – “Bridging the Gap.” These few examples showcase how far we have come in building best practices for global MR associations; the strength of our advocacy work to safeguard the work we do, in the face of changing legislation; and the power that comes from the cooperation and engagement of the two sides of our industry.

ARIA – Americas Research Industry Alliance Meeting – November 14th, 2012 – Montevideo, Uruguay ARIA is an association of marketing research associations for the Americas, and I was delighted to be asked to join Sandy Janzen to represent MRIA at a meeting held 6

vue January/February 2013

Je me sens très enthousiasmé et stimulé de pouvoir communiquer avec vous à titre de directeur général intérimaire de l’ARIM. Je suis honoré d’être en mesure d’apporter une partie de mon expertise et de mes perspectives comme « un des vôtres » au rôle de gestion de notre association dans un période de changements marquants au sein de notre industrie. À cause du départ de Brendan, notamment, je reconnais que j’ai un héritage solide à respecter et à maintenir, tout en apportant les nouvelles idées et perspectives d’une personne qui a été surtout à l’extrémité réceptrice des services et des initiatives de l’ARIM. En tant qu’ancien bénévole, je sais également que les divers conseils, portefeuilles et comités sont notre souffle de vie et, puisque je connais la plupart d’entre eux, j’offre mes remerciements sincères à la myriade de professionnels qui décident d’appuyer généreusement l’association en y contribuant leur temps, leur expérience et leur énergie.

Depuis le peu de temps que je détiens ce rôle (seulement quelques semaines au moment d’écrire ceci), j’ai participé à quelques initiatives dont j’aimerais vous parler – elles méritent selon moi un compte-rendu : une rencontre internationale de l’ARIA en Uruguay à laquelle j’ai assisté, notre position actuelle sur la Loi canadienne anti-pourriel (LAPC), et un événement récent qui démontre selon moi les idéaux du thème de notre prochaine conférence « Combler l’écart ». Ces quelques exemples illustrent tout le chemin que nous avons parcouru dans l’établissement de pratiques exemplaires pour les associations mondiales de recherche marketing, la force du travail de défense des droits de notre profession face aux changements législatifs, et le pouvoir qui découle de la coopération et de l’engagement des deux côtés de notre industrie.

ARIA – Rencontre de l’Americas Research Industry Alliance – 14 novembre 2012 – Montevideo, Uruguay ARIA est une association de recherche marketing pour les Amériques. J’ai été réjoui d’être invité à me joindre à

COM M E N TARY / COMMEN TAI R E

in Montevideo, Uruguay. A list of associations and their representatives in attendance follows, some of which may be familiar to you (CASRO in the U.S. and AMAI in Mexico, in particular). With Ecuador joining ARIA just prior to this meeting, only Bolivia and Paraguay are missing from what would be a full complement of countries with marketing research associations represented at the ARIA table.

ASSOCIATION COUNTRY REPRESENTATIVES

ABEP

Brazil

Marisa da Camara

ACEI

Columbia

María José Calvo

Rosabla Olivella

Martha Umaña

AMAI

Mexico

Heriberto López Romo

APEIM

Peru

Urpi Torrado

CASRO

USA

Kevin Menk

CEIM

Argentina

Santiago Kahane

CEISMU

Uruguay

Alain Mizrahi

Francisco Rodríguez Folle

MRIA/ARIM

Sandy Janzen

Canada

John Ball

Julia Helena Carrillo

Ecuador

ARIA

Alejandro Garnica

Areas of some discussion at this meeting included bringing a certification process to allow countries’ member companies to demonstrate adherence to globally accepted quality standards where they didn’t currently exist; awards and recognition (the Manolo Award now only in its second year); and talent development to facilitate careers for young people in marketing research. Does any of this sound familiar?

I was happy to provide those gathered with the progress we have already made in these areas with our long-standing and evolving Gold Seal Certification process, our Awards of Excellence program, and the strides we continue to take to bring students from various educational institutes in our country into our industry. This round table discussion reaffirmed for me that the strategic direction our association has taken in its eight years of existence has already produced results that put us far ahead of where most marketing research associations are in their evolution.

In addition, it should be noted that our association with ARIA provides us membership and influence within the recently formed Global Research Business

Sandy Janzen pour représenter l’ARIM à une rencontre à Montevideo en Uruguay. Le tableau ci-dessous contient la liste des associations participantes, et de leurs représentants, dont certaines vous sembleront sans doute familières (notamment CASRO des É-U. et AMAI du Mexique). Puisque l’Équateur s’est joint à l’ARIA juste avant la rencontre, il ne manque plus que la Bolivie et le Paraguay pour que tous les pays ayant des associations de recherche marketing soient à la table de l’ARIA. ASSOCIATION PAYS

REPRÉSENTANTS

ABEP

Brésil

Marisa da Camara

ACEI

Colombie

María José Calvo

Rosabla Olivella

Martha Umaña

AMAI

Mexique

Heriberto López Romo

APEIM

Pérou

Urpi Torrado

CASRO

États-Unis

Kevin Menk

CEIM

Argentine

Santiago Kahane

CEISMU

Uruguay

Alain Mizrahi

Francisco Rodríguez Folle

MRIA/ARIM

Sandy Janzen

Canada

John Ball

Julia Helena Carrillo

Équateur

ARIA

Alejandro Garnica

Parmi les sujets qui ont suscité des discussions au cours de la rencontre figurent la mise en vigueur d’un processus d’accréditation permettant à toutes les entreprises des pays membres de démontrer leur adhésion à des normes de qualité acceptables au palier international (là où ce processus n’est pas encore en vigueur), les prix et les reconnaissances (dont le Prix Manolo dans sa deuxième année), et le développement des talents afin de faciliter la carrière de jeunes en recherche marketing. Certains de ces sujets vous semblent-ils familiers?

J’ai eu le plaisir d’expliquer aux participants les progrès que nous avons déjà accomplis dans ces domaines grâce à notre processus d’accréditation Sceau d’or, existant de longue date et constamment en évolution, de même que notre programme de prix d’excellence, et tous les efforts que nous faisons pour attirer les étudiants de divers établissements d’enseignement vers notre industrie. Cette discussion en table ronde m’a confirmé que l’orientation stratégique que notre association a prise au cours de ses huit ans d’existence a déjà produit des résultats qui nous placent à l’avant-garde de l’évolution de la plupart des associations de recherche marketing. vue January/February 2013

7

COMMEN TARY / CO MME NTAI R E

Network (GRBN), consisting of ARIA, EFAMRO (fourteen European countries) and APRC (ten Asia Pacific countries).

Recently, ARIA representatives joined with others from the constituent associations of GRBN in meetings with ESOMAR in London to work out ways to share and collaborate, and to bring a common voice from associations around the world to issues of importance to our industry.

Canadian Anti-Spam Legislation and the MRIA Several of our members have been tracking our lobbying efforts in regard to Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation and how it may impact our business when it comes into effect.

As you may know, the bill received royal assent in December 2010. The latest set of regulations has now been published and, presuming there is no more industry pushback and no more changes are required, it will come into force some time in 2013. Once in effect, the law will, among other things, prohibit the sending of commercial electronic messages without the recipient’s consent, including messages to email addresses and social networking accounts, and text messages sent to cellular phones.

After consultation with Brian Bowman (Pitblado) and Greg Jodouin (PACE), I am happy to report that it is our current belief that the law will not apply to us as long as there is no solicitation involved. According to the conditions outlined in the legislation, there has to be a “commercial activity” for it to apply, so technically speaking we are “excluded” from the scope of the law, rather than “exempted” (a better position to be in, as exemptions can always be reviewed and amended) as long as we do not engage in “commercial activity” through our efforts.

Notwithstanding some vagaries regarding how incentives might be considered part of a commercial engagement, this result dovetails nicely and accentuates the past efforts we have made in enforcing our position on Mugging and Sugging. Greg reports that, “As the law is somewhat ambiguous in how it was drafted and we are very happy with where we ended up, we continue to work with Industry Canada and the CRTC to ensure that they communicate our exclusion.“ It is also important to remember that CASL does not require a sender to obtain consent before communicating with individuals with whom the sender has a previous engagement, which would be the case for most of our 8

vue January/February 2013

Il faut noter de plus que notre collaboration avec l’ARIA assure notre adhésion et notre influence au sein du Global Research Business Network (GRBN) mis sur pied récemment et comprenant l’ARIA, l’EFAMRO (quatorze pays européens) et l’APRC (dix pays de l’Asie-Pacifique). Récemment, les représentants de l’ARIA ont collaboré avec d’autres représentants d’associations constituantes du GRBN lors d’une réunion de l’ESOMAR à Londres pour déterminer des façons de partager et de collaborer et d’en arriver à créer une voix commune pour les associations partout dans le monde concernant des questions importantes pour notre industrie.

Loi canadienne anti-pourriel et l’ARIM Plusieurs de nos membres suivent nos efforts de lobbying entourant la Loi canadienne anti-pourriel et les conséquences qu’elle pourrait entraîner sur nos affaires quand elle entrera en vigueur.

Comme vous le savez peut-être, le projet de loi a reçu la sanction royale en décembre 2010 et le plus récent ensemble de règlements vient d’être publié. S’il n’y a pas d’autre opposition de la part de l’industrie et plus de changements requis, la loi entrera en vigueur à un moment donné en 2013. À ce moment-là, elle interdira, entre autres, l’envoi de messages électroniques commerciaux sans le consentement du récipiendaire, y compris les courriels envoyés à des adresses de courriel et à des comptes de réseaux sociaux, et les messages textuels envoyés à des téléphones cellulaires.

Après avoir consulté Brian Bowman (Pitblado) et Greg Jodouin (PACE), j’ai le plaisir d’annoncer qu’à l’heure actuelle nous sommes d’avis que la nouvelle loi ne s’appliquera pas à nous pourvu que l’on n’effectue aucune sollicitation. Selon les conditions formulées dans la législation, il faut qu’il y ait une « activité commerciale » pour que la loi s’applique; donc, techniquement, nous sommes « exclus » de sa portée plutôt qu’ « exemptés » (une meilleure position, puisque les exemptions peuvent toujours être revues et amendées), pourvu que nous ne participions pas à une « activité commerciale ».

Malgré certaines notions curieuses voulant que des incitatifs soient peut-être perçus comme faisant partie d’un engagement commercial, ce résultat concorde bien avec tous nos efforts pour faire adopter notre position sur le mugging et le sugging, et il l’accentue. Greg signale que « puisque le libellé de la loi est un peu ambigu et que nous sommes très satisfaits de la position où nous nous trouvons, nous continuerons de travailler avec Industrie Canada et le CRTC pour nous assurer qu’ils communiquent notre exclusion. » Il est également important de se rappeler que la LAPC n’exige pas qu’un expéditeur obtienne un consentement

COM M E N TARY / COMMEN TAI R E

online panellist interactions. We will keep you posted on developments on this issue as they arise.

CSRC Social Connect Event – Innovation Day – Soapbox Shout Out I want to bring to your attention the efforts of one of our leading councils, the Client-Side Researcher Council and in particular its chair, Joseph Chen, and event organizers Kamal Sharma and Katie Rode for their efforts in introducing an innovative element as part of their Innovation Day, held on December 5, 2012, in Toronto.

Following the solid client presentations that took up the first half of this event, Joseph and his board decided to introduce a “soapbox” element for the afternoon portion of the day to provide their members an opportunity to see the latest and greatest from the agency side of the business. It was the first time that this was ever tried at MRIA, and we were able to attract some very senior representatives from our agency corporate members who, for a small fee, were provided with an opportunity to present their latest techniques to the client attendees in a ten-minute, closed-door session with a follow-on, ten-minute Q&A. For ten corporate agency members, the temptation was too great to resist.

Feedback on this event was promising, and I was happy to be there to personally thank those agencies stepping up to participate.

But one of the biggest benefits of this initiative happened behind the scenes. As a result of this opportunity being available only to our corporate agency members, this soapbox opportunity on its own was responsible for encouraging three firms to join as new corporate members of the association. So let me take this opportunity to give particular thanks to Rand Research, Northstar, and Dig Insights for their participation in the soapbox, and to welcome them as new corporate members of MRIA. Of course, the real thanks goes to the creative efforts of the CSRC and their decision to make cooperative engagement between clients and agencies a priority. Look for more efforts like this to be showcased at our annual conference in Niagara Falls, as we bring more content and focus to “Bridging the Gap” in our industry.

avant de communiquer avec des personnes avec qui il avait un engagement préalable, ce qui serait le cas pour la plupart de nos interactions avec des panélistes en ligne.

Nous vous tiendrons au courant des développements entourant cette question à mesure qu’ils se présentent.

Événement de connexions sociales du CCRS – Journée de l’innovation – Soapbox Shout Out Je tiens à attirer votre attention sur les efforts d’un de nos principaux conseils, le Conseil des chercheurs côté client et, notamment, de son président Joseph Chen et des organisateurs de l’événement Kamal Sharma et Katie Rode pour tout ce qu’ils ont fait pour inclure un élément novateur dans leur Journée de l’innovation qui a eu lieu le 5 décembre 2012, à Toronto.

Après la présentation d’un exposé solide qui a occupé la première partie de l’événement, Joseph et les membres de son conseil ont décidé d’introduire un élément « caisse de savon » au cours de l’après-midi afin d’offrir à leurs membres l’occasion de voir ce qu’il y avait de plus récent et important de côté agences. C’est la première fois qu’on a tenté cela à l’ARIM et nous avons pu attirer des cadres supérieurs de nos sociétés membres corporatifs qui, moyennant un petit cachet, ont eu la chance de présenter leurs nouvelles techniques aux clients participants au cours de séances à huis clos suivies de 10 minutes de Q et R. Dix sociétés membres corporatifs n’ont pu résister à la tentation. La rétroaction à l’événement est prometteuse et je suis heureux d’avoir été présent pour remercier personnellement les sociétés qui ont accepté de participer.

Par contre, un des plus grands avantages de cette initiative s’est manifesté en coulisse. Grâce au fait que cette possibilité n’était offerte qu’à nos sociétés membres corporatifs, cette occasion de monter sur « une caisse à savon » a réussi à encourager trois sociétés à devenir membres corporatifs de notre association. Je profite donc de ce message pour remercier tout particulièrement Rand Research, Northstar et Dig Insights de leur participation à cette « caisse de savon » et pour souhaiter la bienvenue aux nouveaux membres corporatifs de l’ARIM. Il va sans dire que les vrais remerciements vont aux efforts du CCCC et à sa décision d’accorder la priorité à l’engagement corporatif entre clients et sociétés. Restez à l’affut des autres efforts de ce genre qui seront en vedette à notre conférence annuelle à Niagara Falls, à mesure que nous développons le contenu et l’objectif pour « Combler les écarts » dans notre industrie.

John Ball, CMRP, Interim Executive Director /DIrectuer general intérimaire Marketing Research and Intelligence Association / L’Association de la recherche et de l’intelligence marketing Email: jball@mria-arim.ca • (905) 602-6854 ext./poste 8724

vue January/February 2013

9

Industry Ethics

Consumer’s Eye View Market Research Scott Koenig In addition to the marketing research work I do, I also teach marketing classes at a university. Each week, there is at least one assignment in which students take the principles from the lesson and apply them to their own life. One of the lessons is on marketing research, and the application lesson presents the following scenario: The results of a quantitative survey come back mixed. In some aspects, the research supports your plans, but in other aspects it does not. You are under pressure to deliver soon. You are considering sharing with upper management only the parts of the research that support your plan. What should you do?

To my students’ credit, all of them say they would share everything and not hold anything back. Some of them indicate their motivation as “fear of getting caught,” while others indicate it is “just the right thing to do.” I believe these students are sincere in their responses, but I also wonder what they will do when they really are in that

10

vue January/February 2013

situation and when there is much more on the line than a few points in a college marketing class.

This case study on ethics is but one of the many real-life ethical challenges we all face as marketing researchers.

Now let’s not mistake ethics for legality. We can be unethical and still not break the laws of the land. Acting in an unethical manner does, however, damage our relationship with clients, hinders response rates, and casts a shadow on the industry.

Ethics professor Craig E. Johnson wrote, “The job of a leader is to foster ethical accountability and to encourage followers to live up to their moral responsibilities” (from Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership, 4th ed., published by SAGE Publications, 2011). Before going further, let me mention that each of us, regardless of job title, is a leader. Thus, ethical responsibility is for everyone to embrace.

Knowing what is ethical can sometimes be difficult to figure out. To help define ethics, almost all professions have some sort of a code of conduct or code of ethics.

S P ECIAL F EATUR E

The marketing research world is no different. Some codes of ethics in the marketing research world are written at a corporate level, or they are developed by an industry association such as ICC/ESOMAR. Having a written code of ethics does not of itself guarantee ethical behaviour, and the purpose of this article is not to argue for or against having such a code within the marketing research profession. While individuals are free to make choices as to their own conduct, having a code of ethics “provides a framework for self-regulation” (ICC/ ESOMAR International Code on Market and Social Research, available at www.esomar.org/knowledge-and-standards/ codes-and-guidelines.php).

Having worked in supplier-side research for the past twelve years, I could have written an article on ethics based solely on experiences from my career. But as a researcher, writing something without collecting data is like driving a Ferrari F70 using only first gear: you may still get to where you want to go, but it will not be as much fun and, oh, what a waste of resources it would be.

In the spirit of research, I took a collection of stories from the field and asked some of my marketing research colleagues how they would respond to those real-life marketing research situations. Each of the scenarios falls under ESOMAR’s code of ethics (although none of my colleagues knew that beforehand).

For the purpose of this article I will discuss the portion of the ESOMAR code that calls for “transparency”: 1. R esearchers shall promptly identify themselves and unambiguously state the purpose of the research.

2. R esearchers shall on request allow the client to arrange for checks on the quality of data collection and data preparation.

3. R esearchers shall provide their clients with appropriate technical details of any research project carried out for the clients.

4. R esearchers shall ensure that market research projects are designed, carried out, reported and documented accurately, transparently and objectively.

Words such as transparency and unambiguous in an industry where we use terms such as mystery shopping and blind studies seem to be a bit of a paradox. If there is a way to “unambiguously state the purpose of the research” without compromising the integrity of the research and breaking the code of ethics, I have not found it; and in those instances I lean to the side of research integrity over transparency.

There are, however, bigger decisions around transparency that we need to make as marketing researchers. These decisions have ramifications that reach further than simply determining if a respondent takes part in our study or not.

Consider the following: The Case of the Puzzling Data. You deliver a report from a recent online survey to your client, Hamilton Technologies, a large publicly traded hi-tech firm.

Stacey, your client contact, calls you and says that one of the tables seems to show results that run counter to what had been thought internally. She is not upset but asks you to double-check the data tables to be sure they are correct.

You rerun the data and cross-check the output tables with the charts in the report. Everything seems to be accurate.

However, being the experienced researcher you are, you know that data can also be off due to programming errors in the online software, or data labels could have gotten reversed in the setting-up and programming of the analysis software. You fill your client’s request, though, to “doublecheck the tables,” and you can answer honestly that the “data tables checked out okay.” Still, you can’t help thinking there could be something wrong somewhere else. Would you reverse-engineer the report and data, looking for possible errors that could have occurred in the analysis and/or survey programming?

Most of the colleagues to whom I presented this scenario said they would go back and reverse-engineer the data “every time.” Their reasons included the following: (a) Researchers owe their clients due diligence and professionalism.

Whatever it takes. (b) When an error appears to be there – it may or may not be – then it is worth digging as deep as possible to ensure you can stand behind the data. (c) As a researcher, you have to stand by the quality of your work.

Besides, you’re not delivering data; you’re delivering insight.

Some did say they would go back, “depending on the circumstances,” such as whether the story or overall decisions would change if the data were found to be incorrect. As logical as their decision may or may not be, stating “it depends” is making a decision outside the framework provided by the code of ethics.

Following the ESOMAR code of ethics, a marketing researcher is obligated to exercise due diligence and ensure that everything is accurate in the report: “Researchers shall ensure that market research projects are designed, carried out, reported and documented accurately, transparently and objectively.”

As you read the scenario, you probably formed your own opinion about what you would do. Remember: You have vue January/February 2013

11

SPECIAL FEATURE

done nothing illegal, and you did what your client asked you to do. You checked the data tables; you compared them to the report; and they checked out. Following the letter of the law, you did what the client asked.

Now, step back for a moment and be honest with yourself as you consider the implications of choosing to go back and check the data or not. Digging deeper might open you up to other consequences you are not prepared to accept. Consider the following and ask yourself, honestly, how each changes your decision: • You really do not have the bandwidth to dig into the data without jeopardizing the timing of another project to which you have already allocated resources.

• T he client tells you that the results as you presented them paint a less than positive picture of the company and, if correct, would probably lead to the firing of some of the company’s senior management and staff.

• I f you dive deeper into the data and find out that there was a problem on your end, you could be fired for making a careless mistake.

Each of these what-ifs might change the way you looked at the scenario, but ultimately there is only one right thing to do.

One way to determine the rightness or wrongness of a decision in the absence of, or with ambiguity in, a written code of ethics is to look at the decision from three perspectives. Lets look at the case of the puzzling data from these three perspectives: Gut reaction. What did your gut tell you to do? When I told you that there might be limitations on time and resources in going back and checking the data, or when I said there is potential for someone (including yourself ) to be fired, did your decision change? Trusting in your gut reaction, especially if it fits within the framework provided by a written code of ethics, can sometimes be the right thing.

Front page news. How comfortable would you feel if the outcome of your decision appeared as front page news – “Marketing Research Results Lead to the Firing of CEO” or “Marketing Researcher Finds Mistake in Data; Loses Job but Maintains Integrity”?

Mom Test. How would your mom, spouse, child (or anyone whose opinion you deeply care about) feel about your decision? (The three perspectives in this model are based on the work of ethicist Rushworth M. Kidder, in his book How 12

vue January/February 2013

Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living, published by Harper, 2009.)

I presented only one example of a potential ethical challenge within the marketing research industry. There are several more. I’ve been around enough marketing researchers to know that most make sound ethical decisions. Sometimes, though, what are usually easy decisions can become difficult because the layer of consequences becomes thicker. As the consequences increase, the line between ethically right and ethically wrong becomes more and more clouded.

As marketing researchers, we have access to data and information that are often sensitive in nature. We have access to people who are willing to talk and who trust that we are who we say we are. We can speak to children and other potentially vulnerable groups. We must live up to the standards of our industry. Some situations require very little thought as to the decision we will make, but others require a little more involvement.

While I believe that all marketing research organizations should have written ethical standards and that these standards should be communicated clearly throughout the organization, it is ultimately up to each of us, individually, to determine what we will do and how we will act. As one of my colleagues who is new to the industry explained, “Personal integrity to a code of ethics is critical to the future of market research. I feel that trust and honesty are essential, and if you don’t have that, then I don’t care how great your skills and knowledge are; your practices are at risk of bending results to meet a client’s wishes rather than search for the truth.”

The purpose of this article was not to advocate any particular code of ethics. I used ESOMAR only as an example of a framework under which the industry should operate as we call on industry leaders to foster ethical accountability and live up to our moral responsibilities.

Scott Koenig is the president of Consumer’s Eye View Market Research, a U.S.-based marketing research company focusing on the consumer packaged goods industry. Scott holds an MBA from the University of Utah. When he is not working, he can usually be found running, biking or spending time with his wife and four children in his Arlington, Texas, home. He can be reached at scott@consumerseyeview.com and @scott_koenig

FORGOT SOMETHING? COULD IT BE RENEWING YOUR

MRIA MEMBERSHIP

FOR 2013?

RENEW YOUR MRIA MEMBERSHIP TODAY TO DEVELOP YOUR CAREER AND BUSINESS WHILE SUPPORTING YOUR INDUSTRY. Here are some of the benefits you enjoy as an MRIA MEMBER: • Professional Standings & Credibility

• Professional Recognition

• Exclusive Networking Opportunities

• Powerful Advocacy

• Staying Informed

• Connect with other Members

• Member Discounts

• Relevant Professional Development

• Marketing of your Business

• Learning Opportunities ... and Fun!

NOW IS THE TIME TO RENEW Visit the MRIA Portal TODAY at www.mriaportal-arimportail.ca to renew your membership for 2013.

For more information, contact MRIA at membership@mria-arim.ca

The Implications of

‘Do Not Track’

for Research David Stark

At Princeton University, nearly two years ago, I attended a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) workshop on online tracking. All could attend, as long as a paper outlining their interest in the subject was submitted in advance.

I had proposed to ESOMAR and CASRO that they jointly submit a position paper on behalf of the marketing research industry, and I offered to draft it. (The ESOMARCASRO position paper on W3C is publicly available at www.w3.org/2011/track-privacy/papers/CASRO-ESOMAR. pdf ) Our view was that online research panels that obtain explicit consent to track their members’ browsing activities across sites should be allowed to rely on that consent and not have it overridden by browser do-not-track (DNT) settings. We won that argument; it is currently reflected in the W3C’s draft DNT standard.

Further, our paper stated that DNT should not apply to marketing, social and opinion research, and we drew a comparison to the do-not-call (DNC) list, in which, we noted, marketing research calls are excluded from the scope of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s DNC registry.

Marketing research calls are also excluded from several other national DNC registries, including those in Canada, the U.K. and Australia.

We believe that DNT should apply to targeted ads served to consumers. Checking the DNT box in browser privacy settings seemed like a promising way for Internet users to communicate to websites that they did not want to be tracked across sites for the purpose of being served targeted ads. Several research studies suggest that consumers are uncomfortable with the practice. (TRUSTe commissioned TNS to conduct surveys on the topic, and 14

vue January/February 2013

academics have done research on it, too. See www.truste. com/blog/2009/10/01/no-question-consumers-care-abouttracking/) In February 2012, the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) in the U.S. was commended by the White House, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) when the organization announced that its members would recognize browser-based choices.

In addition, the DAA’s Self-Regulatory Principles for MultiSite Data codified existing industry practices prohibiting the collection or use of cross-site data for “any adverse determination concerning employment, credit, health treatment or insurance eligibility, as well as specific protections for sensitive data concerning children, health and financial data.” (The DAA press release is available at www.aboutads.info/resource/download/DAA%20 White%20House%20Event.pdf ) Although the final DNT standard will most likely not apply to research panels that obtain explicit consent to track panellists across the web, it is uncertain whether the final standard will permit researchers to conduct cross-site census measurement. At stake is the ability of researchers to continue measuring the frequency and reach of online content that is displayed to all Internet users. Such measurement includes counting ad impressions among unique visitors, confirming delivery of content, verifying the positioning and quality of ad impressions, and calibrating audience measurement for quality control.

Publishers that work with a marketing research company do so because they want to better understand their site visitors on an anonymous basis. When the same marketing research company works with many other publishers, it is

F EATUR E

possible for the research firm to inform a publisher that twenty per cent of its visitors, for example, also visit sports websites. The publisher may then decide to add more sports content or sports-related advertising to its site so as to appeal to the interests of many of its visitors.

Publishers do not receive the browsing histories of individual visitors, nor do they receive any raw data about all individual visitors. They simply receive highly useful aggregated statistical data and reports that describe general trends and characteristics.

In addition, census audience measurement data are used to calibrate data collected from marketing research panels, resulting in far more accurate data delivered to users of research. Relying on panel data by itself may not reflect the characteristics of Internet users as a whole.

In the offline world, outdoor advertising is measured by counting cars passing by billboards. Researchers also count pedestrians and bicyclists for such noble uses as providing information for transportation planning and for funding decisions.

Passive measurement has been with us for many years and, throughout, researchers have taken care to protect the data they collect. When researchers conduct census audience measurement online, they employ various protections, such as hashing or truncating IP addresses, encrypting servers, and retaining raw data only as long as necessary to fulfill the research purpose.

Some members of the W3C working group are opposed to a research exemption from DNT for passive media measurement. In their view, DNT stands for do-not-track, not do-not-target. They believe that exceptions should be few in number.

Census audience measurement means researchers collect comprehensive data online about millions of Internet users across many sites – quite different from telephone surveys, in which comparatively smaller samples of respondents are contacted and nothing is known about them until they explicitly agree to participate. As such, privacy advocates would argue that comparisons between DNT and DNC are not on point.

For their part, some proponents of targeted advertising have also been critical of comparisons between DNT and DNC, but for different reasons. When consumers register their phone numbers on the DNC list to opt out of unsolicited telemarketing calls, they do not receive free telephone services before or after they opt out. Expressing a DNT preference, though, means that consumers get to opt out of being served targeted ads while still getting free content or online services such as email, search, news, games, data

storage, and social media. So if they opt out of tracking, why should they continue to get something for nothing? (See Daniel Castro’s article at www.innovationfiles.org/repeatafter-me-do-not-track-is-not-do-not-call/) The Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) runs an optout tool on its website, allowing consumers to stop receiving targeted ads from NAI members. Nielsen, comScore, Kantar, GfK and other research firms similarly offer opt-outs for passive media measurement tracking.

In addition, free plug-ins such as Ghostery, Adblock Plus, and Targeted Advertising Cookie Opt-Out allow users to see third-party trackers that are present on websites and to block them. The Internet ecosystem can afford to deliver free content to all consumers when opt-out rates are low; but if they increase substantially in number, then business models will inevitably have to change. Publishers will have to start charging visitors for content.

Last June, Microsoft announced that Internet Explorer 10 (IE10) would enable DNT by default. If users blithely accept Microsoft’s recommended settings in IE10, then the DNT signal is turned on. This was a provocative and controversial announcement. Predictably, many privacy and consumer advocates liked it, while the ad industry largely opposed it. Microsoft’s shocking announcement upended the fragile consensus that was being forged at W3C. All other browser manufacturers believe that users should proactively check a box to express their DNT preference, and not have it set for them by default.

Given IE’s significant share of the browser market, and recognizing that many consumers accept recommended default settings, the number of Internet users transmitting a DNT signal will grow. In time, I think, those who have DNT turned on can expect to encounter pay walls.

The W3C draft standard allows first-party websites to ask DNT-enabled visitors to grant site-wide and/or webwide exceptions. DNT users could begin to see many sites with annoying dialogue boxes containing questions like the following: We are able to offer the content on this site for free because it is supported by interest-based ads. We see that you have Do-Not-Track turned on. Do you grant an exception for us and all our partners listed below to track your activity on this website and all other websites where our third-party partners are present? YES/NO If DNT-enabled visitors answer no, then the first-party website operator could elect to charge them a fee to access the site. vue January/February 2013

15

F E ATURE

Conceivably – if many websites exercise their right to ask for site-wide or web-wide exceptions, and if DNT users encounter annoying dialogue windows and pay walls left, right and centre – one would expect that the trade-off for giving up some privacy in exchange for free content will be made painstakingly clear to consumers. Several DNT users will end up turning off the signal and accepting the bargain.

There is no guarantee that the W3C do-not-track working group will produce a final standard. Several deadlines have been missed, as talks drag on. Some of the emails exchanged between ad industry representatives and consumer advocates have been very testy, to say the least.

(The W3C DNT working group’s emails are publicly available at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/publictracking/) Meanwhile, some critics question the composition of the working group, noting that small businesses are woefully under-represented. The FTC and the European Union’s Article 29 Working Party, which is made up of representatives from the data protection authority in each EU member country, have seats at the table; but companies and regulators outside the U.S. and Europe do not.

Behavioural targeting is relatively new. With the passage of time, perhaps the fears and concerns felt by some consumers will wane. Every new technology raises privacy concerns. In his 1967 book, Privacy and Freedom, public law professor Alan F. Westin lists nineteenth century technologies that threatened privacy – the microphone, the telephone, the recorder and the camera – each of which could be used by government or the press to spy on citizens.

We have become accustomed to and comfortable with these

16

vue January/February 2013

technologies. I dare say that, in time, society will broadly accept today’s innovations too.

As author Douglas Adams put it in a 1999 newspaper essay: 1. Everything that’s already in the world when you’re born is just normal; 2. Anything that gets invented between then and before you turn thirty is incredibly exciting and creative and with any luck you can make a career out of it; 3. Anything that gets invented after you’re thirty is against the natural order of things and the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it until it’s been around for about ten years when it gradually turns out to be alright really. (Douglas Adams’s article “How to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love the Internet” originally appeared in The Sunday Times (London) on August 29, 1999. This article excerpt and Alan Westin’s observations mentioned previously are found in Jeff Jarvis’s excellent book, Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live, published by Simon and Schuster in 2011.)

David Stark is GfK’s vice-president of Integrity, Compliance and Privacy for the Americas. A past-president of the MRIA, David serves as vice-chair of ESOMAR’s Legal Committee, and he is a member of the association’s Professional Standards Committee. When he is not being tracked online, he may be tracked offline happily using his Aeroplan, AirMiles, Hilton HHonors, or Shoppers Optimum loyalty cards to earn rewards. He can be reached at david.stark@gfk.com or (647) 274-1716.

INDUSTRY N E WS

Launch of a New

Online Research Verification Service The Research Registration System (RRS) is MRIA’s most established and long-standing self-

regulatory mechanism. The new RRS application, launched in November 2012, is hosted on the MRIA Portal and offers many additional functionalities to MRIA members who collect survey data.

In addition, the new RRS application allows the public to go online to verify the legitimacy of a marketing research project. This new Online Research Verification service is available in both English and French.

The public now has three options to choose from in order to verify the legitimacy of a marketing research project. As well, they can submit comments, complaints or questions about a project or research agency: 1. C lick on the unique URL for a research project that has been posted online by the research agency collecting the data; 2. V isit one of the following URL: www.surveyverification.ca or www.verificationsondage.ca and enter the MRIA Project Registration Number communicated to them by the research agency who contacted them; 3. Phone MRIA at 1-888-602-6742, ext. 8728.

With the new RRS, the MRIA continues to achieve its objective of ensuring that market research in Canada is accountable to a high standard and that the public who participate in market research have the ability to communicate with the MRIA. For more information on the new Research Verification Service, please visit www.mria-arim.ca/RRS/SurveyRegForm.asp or contact MRIA at RRS@mria-arim.ca.

AU CONTRAIRE (6)

Being Better Works.

Differentiation, Not So Much Chuck Chakrapani, CMRP, FMRIA

The sacred mantra of marketing is that a product, “This is the greatest to be successful, should advertising opportunity be differentiated from all since the invention of others. Uniqueness is key cereal. We have six identical to the success of a brand. companies making six After all, if your brand is not identical products. We differentiated from anyone can say anything we want.” else’s, if it offers the same – Don Draper, generic benefits offered by Madmen protagonist all your competitors, why would anyone buy your brand?

Back in the sixties, Rosser Reeves, head of Ted Bates advertising agency (now Bates 141) and believed to be one of the people on whom Don Draper of Madmen was modelled, wrote a small, breezy book, Reality in Advertising.

In it he expounded the theory that, for a product to sell, it should be differentiated from all other brands on the market. It should have a unique selling proposition (USP).

Since then, this idea that a product has to be unique to be successful has been adopted uncritically by almost all

18

vue January/February 2013

marketing books, almost all marketing departments, almost all advertising agencies, and almost all brand theoreticians.

Marketing books and journal papers quote case studies in which distinct and unique brands have succeeded.

The idea that product differentiation is essential for success has spawned books with apocalyptic titles such as Differentiate or Die (by Jack Trout and S. Rivkin, 2000).

Books such as Blue Ocean Strategy (W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, 2005) went a step further and advocated finding a niche that is devoid of competition: not just a differentiated brand, but a differentiated market niche as well. Who can dispute the success of Cirque du Soleil or of products like the iPhone or iPad, which have carved their own niche, at least for a while?

By treating such exceptional products as the norm, differentiation evangelists may have diverted our attention away from what consistently works to what is inherently difficult to achieve, much less to sustain.

What the prophets of differentiation fail to note is that there are a lot more highly successful products on the market that are nearly identical.

F EATUR E

If There Is Differentiation, Consumers Don’t See It

‘Same but Better’ Works

Since brand differentiation is assumed to be very important, hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on differentiating brands. But do consumers really notice the differentiation? To find out, Jack Trout and Kevin Clancy (“Brand Confusion,” Harvard Business Review, March 2002) created pairs of brands in 46 categories, such as the following.

As we saw, in most categories, the top best-selling brands are similar to one another. In any case, consumers don’t believe that they are differentiated. While marketers talk about uniqueness, what they actually strive for is sameness. Why? Because sameness, more precisely “same but better,” works.

It is not an accident that Microsoft Windows now resembles Mac’s operating system. Or that current smartphones try to match the iPhone. If Sensodyne is for sensitive teeth, Colgate and other brands incorporate that benefit in their line extensions. If one airline offers a frequent-flyer program, so does every other airline. If Amazon offers free shipping for orders of a certain size, so do its competitors. This is exactly the reason why, in the study quoted earlier, consumers thought brands were becoming more similar than distinct.

Hair care:

L’Oréal Clairol

Cars:

Honda Toyota

Athletic shoes:

Nike Adidas

Gas stations:

Mobil Shell

Credit cards:

Visa MasterCard

The authors then asked a nationally representative sample of 1,050 consumers whether these brands had become more or less differentiated over the years. In only two categories – soft drinks and soap – did consumers think brands had become more differentiated over the years. If marketers have been attempting to differentiate their brands, they have not been at all successful in their pursuit. In any case, consumers didn’t notice any increased differentiation over the years.

Actually, they thought that nearly 90 per cent of all brand pairs were more similar at the time of the study than they had been a few years earlier.

The logical question then is If differentiation is so crucial to product success, why are brands becoming less differentiated ?

And why are similar brands very successful, claiming top spots in their category?

The simple (and blasphemous) answer is “All other things being that differentiation is not equal (including price and crucial to success. It is availability), customers not even necessary. For buy the brand that will example, Dell can produce deliver the category computers to any standard benefits the best.” specification. So can – Patrick Barwise and ThinkPad. Both computers Sean Meehan, deliver the same generic Simply Better, 2004. benefits of all computers.

Yet some consumers may view ThinkPad as a better-looking computer, or better in some way, such as price, appearance, design. Better, slimmer, faster, cheaper, longer-lasting. The brands are not differentiated in the generic benefits they offer, but the preferred brand is seen as delivering the same generic benefits, only better, faster, or cheaper.

It is not an accident that Microsoft Windows now resembles Mac’s operating system. Or that current smartphones try to match the iPhone. If Sensodyne is for sensitive teeth, Colgate and other brands incorporate that benefit in their line extensions.

Romantic concepts like creating a unique product or finding a market space where there is zero competition are intuitively very appealing – but basically unrealistic, except in rare instances. And it is not necessary to be unique or to be in a noncompetitive space to be highly successful. What the prophets of differentiation fail to note is that there are far more highly successful products on the market that are nearly identical than there are successful products that are differentiated.

For every successful differentiated product such as the iPhone, the iPad, or Cirque du Soleil, there are thousands of very successful non-differentiated products on the market.

In terms of generic benefits, what exactly differentiates Colgate from Crest? Dell from Samsung? Coke from Pepsi?

Sure, consumers can and do believe one brand of toothpaste is better in all around oral protection than another brand, one brand of computer is better-looking than another brand, one brand of soft drink tastes better than another brand. But are the brands really differentiated in the sense that they are unique? Not really. They just offer one or more of the generic benefits better than other comparable brands on the market.

Uniqueness Is Short-Lived but Leadership Endures

Companies spend a lot of time talking about uniqueness and spend a lot of money creating mostly meaningless vue January/February 2013

19

F E ATURE

differentiation. Yet when it comes to taking action, most products try to converge to the best in their class.

If you wanted to enter a market with a product or service, what’s the first thing you would do? I presume that you would, as you should, make sure your product or service delivers the benefits that other brands deliver. If you can offer something different and it is a really desirable feature, it will be to your advantage. But not for long. You can be sure the advantage will be copied, and be copied fairly quickly, by others.

For example, Air Canada does not, in general, offer free wine to economy passengers on its flights, because no other major airline does so. But Porter, an airline that operates from the Toronto Island Airport, does. So Air Canada offers free wine on flights to and from Toronto Island Airport, but not on other flights.

Two lessons: Brands strive for sameness; and any differentiation, if there is a market for it, is copied right away. Despite all the protection accorded to intellectual properties, the current state of information technology is such that it is very difficult to maintain a unique advantage over competitors.

A product can be made better and better as time goes by, and leadership can be sustained for a long time. Uniqueness is short-lived in the Internet age. Gillette is a prime example.

It created several variations of razors: two blades, three blades, four blades, pivoting heads, etcetera. Practically all these features were immediately replicated by other safety razor makers. Yet Gillette retains its dominant position in the market, by creating a higher-quality product (or projecting the image that it does so) in terms of generic qualities such as sharpness, smoothness, closeness of shave, and so on.

Even a product as unique as the iPhone (that “The khakis and sweatis, unique when it was shirts the Gap sells … are introduced just about five not so different … from years ago) now resembles what’s available at Benetton other smartphones on the or J. Crew. … [Sameness] market. The distinction manifests itself in between iPhones and other everything …. Everything smartphones will become seems more and more the less and less marked in the same, wherever you are.” future, while the market – Paul Goldberger, The New York share will be gained by the Times Magazine, April 6, 1997 phone that’s perceived to be better, not necessarily differentiated. As The New York Times points out, what Gap sells is not that different from what Benetton or J. Crew sells.

20

vue January/February 2013

Differentiation Does Not Work

A common misunderstanding about consumers is that they go looking for products that are unique in some way. They don’t. As Patrick Barwise and Sean Meehan (cited earlier) point out, consumers generally do not buy a product for special benefits. They buy toothpaste mostly to get their teeth clean. They buy an umbrella mostly to shield them from rain. They buy a TV set to watch TV. They buy a smartphone for phoning, emailing and using apps. So it is with computers, kitchen knives, and automobiles.

Customers buy products for the generic benefits the products offer. It is the category benefits that attract them to a brand, not what is unique to a brand.

So what happens to a brand that differentiates itself from all other brands on the market and positions itself as unique? If the differentiation appeals to only a small group of customers, it will make the brand a niche brand that is small and potentially profitable but with no prospect of its becoming a large brand. If the differentiation appeals to a large number of customers, it is more than likely that it will be copied by other brands. When the latter happens, the category benefits will be expanded to include what was once a point of differentiation.

For example, prior to the introduction of the iPhone, smartphones were not bought for apps, but now smartphones that cannot tap into a wide range of apps are at a distinct disadvantage. What was a differentiating feature just five years ago is now a cost of entry.

With current technology and communication channels, profitable differentiation loses its edge fairly quickly. The question that is sustained over time is Does your brand deliver the category benefits better? If you are a smartphone, is your reception better? Is your ecosystem better? Do you have a better camera? Does your battery last longer? All are generic benefits.

Because genuine differentiation such as the “The trends in our ones exemplified by Cirque technology lead to du Soleil or the iPad is rare, competing products most differentiation tends to be becoming more product-oriented. Most productand more alike.” oriented differentiation tends – James Webb Young not to be noticed by customers because it is not relevant to them.

Differentiation is difficult to achieve, and even more difficult to sustain. Trying to achieve market success by product differentiation or by a “Blue Ocean Strategy” is

F EATUR E

like trying to make money buying lottery tickets. Yes, it is possible to become rich by winning a lottery, just as it is possible to find winning products that are unique. Just as a small number people have won the lottery, a small number of companies have created unique products. But, in both cases, the chances of winning are so low, it makes more sense not to put too much emphasis on either winning a lottery or finding a product that can be differentiated from all others. A more sensible strategy would be to produce products that provide all generic benefits but perhaps better, faster or cheaper.

The exhibit below summarizes what we know about product differentiation.

What We Know about Product Differentiation • The leaders in a vast majority of categories resemble each other.

• Most differentiation is product-oriented and meaningless to consumers.

For example, Colgate and Crest are not differentiated in terms of what they do, but they are distinct in terms of packaging, advertising, promotion, etcetera. While most consumers believe these brands to be similar, they would not mistake Colgate for Crest, or vice versa.

Any aspect of branding that makes your brand look distinct reminds, and reinforces the brand in consumers’ minds, thus providing the brand with a competitive advantage.

Distinctiveness can be and often is built on attributes that are not particularly relevant to the brand itself. To be distinct, a brand does not have to be truly differentiated in terms of what it has to offer.

Salience. Salience is anything that reminds your buyers of your brand. This includes not only all the aspects of branding that build distinctiveness and positive feelings which remind a customer of your brand but, even more importantly, being readily available to customers when they are looking to buy.

Salience, in most cases, is simply the availability to consumers at the time of purchase.

• Consumer-oriented differentiation is not common.

• When there is true differentiation, the differentiated feature is quickly copied by competition.

• Technological know-how and fast dissemination of information make the window of advantage shorter and shorter.

How Do We Achieve Competitive Advantage?

So if differentiation is an elusive goal and a not very realistic one in most instances, what can you do to ensure that your brand is a preferred one? The most important thing to remember here is that consumers usually buy one brand against all the rest. A minor advantage over other brands can make a difference between buying and not buying. What, then, drives the perception of a brand being the preferred one?

Distinctiveness. Consumers don’t buy different brands randomly, but they do buy them out of habit that manifests itself as brand preference. However, for consumers to have any preference at all, they first need to be able to distinguish one brand from another. Byron Sharp (How Brands Grow, 2010) calls the attribute that causes one brand to be seen as different from another “distinctiveness.” To be distinct, a brand does not have to be differentiated in terms of its product qualities. Distinctiveness is made up of elements that may include factors like colour, logo, taglines, symbols/ characters, celebrity endorsements, and advertising styles – collectively known as branding.

Being better, being distinct, and being available are much more powerful strategies to grow a brand than being differentiated.

Summary

It is not necessary or important for a brand to be differentiated to be successful. Most leading brands are not differentiated. But a brand needs to be distinct in terms of consumer identification and the way it evokes positive feelings. Being better, being distinct, and being available are much more powerful strategies to grow a brand than being differentiated.

Dr. Chuck Chakrapani, PhD, CMRP, FMRIA, is president of Leger Analytics. He is also a distinguished visiting professor at Ted Rogers School of Management at Ryerson University, until recently, the editor of American Marketing Association’s Marketing Research, and a member of the board of directors of Marketing Research Institute International, which, in collaboration with the University of Georgia, offers the online course “Principles of Marketing Research.” He is a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society as well as of MRIA and has authored over a dozen books and 500 articles on various subjects. vue January/February 2013

21

Effective Advertising: Harnessing the Power of Creativity Paul Gareau

Making advertising interesting is the job of the creatives in the ad “The real fact of the agencies. Creative departments matter is that nobody hire individuals who have a reads ads. People read what interests them, and special talent for seeing the sometimes it’s an ad” world differently. They use the – Howard Luck Gossage, power of creativity to get our advertising innovator (1917-1969) attention, and to make products and services interesting and relevant.

We can all easily remember our favourite ads. Mine is a Dentyne Frost Bites ad called “Frostbitten,” in which a man in the back of a cab loads a handful of small gum pellets into his mouth, and then his head freezes solid (the ad can be viewed at www.youtube.com/watch?v=regx_JrpC68).

Creativity is important to advertising for a number of reasons: • It has stopping power. Creativity can make people stop what they are doing and pay attention to advertising – for example, Molson Canadian’s “Made from Canada” commercials.

• It fuels the memory. Creativity can leave enduring brand associations that are difficult to forget – for example, the Energizer Bunny.

• It generates interest. Creativity can make us curious about 22

vue January/February 2013

brands in a way that gets us talking about them, searching for more information, or even wanting to try the product or service – for example, Old Spice’s “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like” commercials.

• It frames the brand experience. Creativity can enhance perceptions of the product experience – for example, Viagra commercials.

Creative and Effective Advertising

But what is creativity, and how do we measure it? These are important questions for those of us in the advertising industry.

Every year, the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity recognizes the most creative advertising from around the world. What criteria do the judges use in making their decisions? There are no rules for producing highly creative advertising, so most would say that they know it when they see it. Dictionary.com defines creativity as “the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, and interpretations.”

As researchers, though, we naturally wanted to know more, so Millward Brown evaluated award-winning advertising to determine if there was a common set of traits that all or most creative advertising possesses. We used our Link™ quantitative copy-testing tool to analyse ads that won Cannes

F EATUR E

Lions between 2002 and 2011 (55 ads across 36 brands).

Quantitative pretesting is often criticized for encouraging a cookie-cutter approach to making ads, and for not fully recognizing creativity; we wanted to test this perspective.

Our Link analysis of Cannes Lions winners showed evidence that there are no patterns or rules to making highly creative advertising. However, our analysis did uncover that winning ads scored higher than average on enjoyment, involvement, positive emotions, and being different from other ads – as exhibit 1 shows. The results in this exhibit are indexed against the relevant norm: an index of 105 or more puts the ads into the top third of our database; an index of 114 or more puts the ads into the top ten per cent.

Exhibit 2: Link Analysis of Effie Award–Winning Ads

Exhibit 1: Link Analysis of Cannes Lions–Winning Ads

These results make perfect sense. Truly creative advertising – advertising that has stopping power, fuels the memory, generates interest, and frames the brand experience – has to be unlike any other ad, differentiating itself in a very engaging way.

But is creative advertising always effective advertising? While Cannes Lions recognizes creative advertising, Effie Awards recognize effective advertising, campaigns that generate proven business results. Millward Brown also analysed Effie Award– winning advertising from 2007 to 2010 using our Link copytesting tool, including 55 ads across 16 brands.

Effie Award winners scored high on the same measures as the Cannes Lions creativity winners (enjoyment, involvement, positive emotions, and being different). In addition, ads that are recognized for effectiveness also scored high on branding and uniqueness of impressions, meaning that the creative was well linked to the advertised brand (see exhibit 2).

Brand linkage means more than just repeatedly showing the brand name or packaging throughout the ad. It takes a creative approach to integrating the brand into the heart of the ad’s

storyline to deliver strong brand linkage. Take, for example, Guinness’ “Evolution” ad, which won the Cannes Grand Prix award in 2006 (you can view it at www.youtube.com/ watch?v=1t4sdgvy-pk). In the Millward Brown database, this ad scored in the top 25 per cent for branding, yet the brand is shown only once at the beginning and once at the end.

It may seem surprising that effective advertising does not necessarily have to be persuasive. Persuasion is a short-term measure of effectiveness. At the moment of seeing the ad, you are either persuaded or you are not. Persuasive advertising typically delivers new and/or relevant information that drives consumers to change their behaviour. Once their behaviour changes, the ad ceases to be persuasive.

Millward Brown has also identified ads that are not persuasive in the short term but are effective at brand building (growing the brand’s equity and market share over the long term). These are the types of ads that typically get submitted for the Effies, so the findings from our analysis should not be surprising.

Advertising that is effective in long-term brand building typically generates a strong emotional response in consumers.

Emotionally powerful ads are more memorable. Our work in the area of copy testing has shown that a number of different emotions are effective at generating a response from consumers, and therefore no one emotion is necessary to trigger successful advertising. Effective advertising triggers the emotion that is most relevant to the brand’s positioning.

Implications for Advertisers

Creativity is very important for advertising to be successful.

Creativity helps deliver stopping power, fuels the memory, generates interest, and frames the brand experience – all of which are important for advertising to work well. The analysis presented in this article adds the need for strong brand linkage and for emotional response to creativity if advertising is also to vue January/February 2013

23

F E ATURE

be effective in building the brand.

Ensuring that the brand has the appropriate strategy driving its creative direction and making sure that the creative efforts are all consistent with the brand’s overall strategy will increase the chances of advertising effectiveness.

While creativity is hard to define – most saying they know it when they see it – through this analysis, we now know the metrics that help us measure it.

Big Idea Research

As advertising costs increase, as competition becomes fiercer, and as brands look to globalize their marketing campaigns, many of the world’s advertisers are placing greater importance on creativity to help their advertising be more disruptive, generate buzz, and transcend cultural and geographic boundaries.

This response underscores the importance of identifying big creative ideas at an early stage of creative development. “Big idea” research takes place in the often neglected space between brand strategy research and the copy-testing research that happens late in the creative development process. By knowing the metrics that help measure creativity, advertisers can greatly benefit from involving research earlier in the creative development process, generating bigger, better ideas.

Rob Hernandez, global brand director for FireFly Millward Brown, says, “There are some who argue that we can’t (or

vue Be Heard Be Seen Be Vue’d

shouldn’t) research our way into a big idea – that big ideas surface spontaneously or come in the form of divine inspiration to agency creatives. I disagree. There are ways to harness consumer research – both qualitative and quantitative – not only to facilitate the co-creation of big ideas, but also to make good ideas even bigger and better.”

Big idea research helps advertisers determine how best to say what they want to communicate, identify the most resonant elements of potential ideas, and evaluate their fit with the brand.

Millward Brown feels that putting the emphasis on development first and then evaluating quantitatively, using a proven framework for making advertising successful, is the right way to research big ideas.

Endnote: I would like to acknowledge the work of three Millward Brown colleagues in providing the research and inspiration for this article: Dominic Twose, global head of Knowledge Management; Polly Wyn Jones, in Knowledge Management; and Rob Hernandez, global brand director of FireFly. Paul Gareau, MSc, is a vice-president at Millward Brown Canada.

Paul has been in the Canadian marketing research industry for the past twelve years and currently spends his time consulting with clients about their brand, advertising, and media strategies. He can be reached at paul.gareau@millwardbrown.com

2013 E D ITO R IAL

CALENDAR Thank you for the support you have shown for Vue magazine over the years and we look forward to counting you among our print and digital advertisers in 2013. We welcome inquiries from advertisers, authors, students and the business community.

Month

Editorial

Submission Deadline

March 2013

MOBILE RESEARCH

February 1, 2013

April 2013

CHARITY PRO BONO RESEARCH AND CLIENTS

March 1, 2013

May 2013

THE CONFERENCE ISSUE – Niagara Falls, Ontario

April 1, 2013

June 2013

SOCIAL MEDIA RESEARCH

May 3, 2013

July / August 2013

CANADIANA

June 3, 2013

September 2013

VIEW FROM COLLEGE

August 2, 2013

October 2013

QUALITATIVE

September 2, 2013

November 2013

CLIENT-SIDE RESEARCHERS

October 4, 2013

December 2013

CRYSTAL BALL – Neuroscience, Gaming

November 1, 2013

24

vue January/February 2013

MRIA PUBLICATIONS

vue

TIMELESS

the magazine of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association NOVEM BER 2012

Au Contraire (4) Fifty Shades of Loyalty Emerging Trends in Advertising Research

Canadian Publications Mail Agreement #40033932

IN MEMORIAM: Joseph B. Doyle, CMRP, FMRIA (1921-2012)

Bridging the Gap between Consumer and Shopper Marketing Perspectives Ten Psychological Needs That Drive Branding Strategy Trusting Your Qual Partner: L’art de la recherche marketing qualitative de haute qualité

vue

Vue-November 2012.indd 1

MEDIA KIT WITH EDITORIAL CALENDAR AND ADVERTISING DEADLINES AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD AT WWW.MRIA-ARIM.CA/ADVERTISING/PDF/VUE-ADGUIDEENG.PDF

With Vue magazine, available both in print and digital versions, you have more options and greater flexibility to read those articles that matter most to your business and to your career. View a sample of eVue (www.mria-arim.ca/PUBLICATIONS/VUE-May2012. asp) and opt out of the print version on MRIA’s Portal www.mriaportal-arimportail.ca

JULY/AUGUST 2012

AU CONTRAIRE What Do We Really Know about Buyer Behaviour?

The Reality of a Constantly Changing World: Some Research Highlights Ann Kingman Interview Cultivating Cultural Interpretation: Sylvestre Marketing’s Roots, Stem and Blossom Canadian Publications Mail Agreement #40033932

VIRTUALLY

12-10-22 10:22 AM

the magazine of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association

Canada, Keep Exploring: Enhancing Travel and Tourism in Canada through Marketing Research

A Conversation on Global Trends for Innovation with Mikel Cirkus

Vue-July/Aug 2012.indd 1

PAPERLESS

12-07-23 10:16 AM

2013-14 RESEARCH BUYER’S GUIDE The only one of its kind in all of Canada, this definitive guide is a must-have for all buyers of marketing research. Production will begin in June 2013 and check your emails for proofs of your previous listings, or follow list and advertising instructions at www.mria-arim.ca/PUBLICATIONS/RBGOrder.asp

Respondent

Privacy

in the (Very) Public Digital Age Kristin Luck

26

vue January/February 2013

F EATUR E

Credit card number. Home address. Phone number. Email address. Health data. Mother’s maiden name. Increasingly, individuals are entering their private information, not only online, but through their ever-present smart mobile devices.

Ten years ago, many people were worried about putting any information online. Now, millions of people shop, pay with credit cards, store their banking information, and complete surveys on the Internet.

Mobile now faces many of the same challenges that online outreach did a decade ago. How are these concerns translating into the new world? What new issues are coming to the forefront?

In the marketing research industry, juicy secondary respondent data – chock full of forbidden, passively collected information – have been and continue to be a hot topic of discussion. This debate continues to evolve as technologies change and improve.

Reaching respondents on the move helps researchers secure timely, diverse and meaningful data; so it’s no surprise that marketers continue to pursue online, mobile and other emerging research techniques, particularly as the incidence of mobile-only households continues to skyrocket and developing countries are bypassing online entirely, in favour of mobile. For marketing researchers, who often collect private information, these are issues that must be addressed upfront with respondents – respondents who are, perhaps, becoming more and more wary of sharing information.

According to a recent New York Times article by Kevin J. O’Brien, even something as innocuous as the popular Angry Birds app has a nasty side – a nastiness that’s used not just to annihilate those pesky pigs. According to O’Brien, when it comes to user privacy, “the game possesses a ravenous ability to collect personal information on its users.” He goes on to note that many users are not even aware that the game is collecting data such as location, gender and identification codes from their mobile devices. This collection of personal data should send up red flags to people who use mobile or tablet devices to play games, let alone answer survey questions on the move. (You can find the October 18, 2012 article, “Data-Gathering via Apps Presents a Gray Legal Area” at www.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/technology/ mobile-apps-have-a-ravenous-ability-to-collect-personaldata.html?_r=0) Because it is not always clear to users what information is being collected about them – and how it’s being used – many people are becoming increasingly protective of their personal information. Marketing researchers must balance rising trends in mobile research with respondent privacy in

order to keep making progress in this important facet of the marketing research space.

The ability to collect ancillary data reduces respondent burden and allows us to study actual versus reported behaviour. Nevertheless, concerns about privacy and the security of personal data require that existing online and mobile marketing and research techniques be modified when dealing with personal information.

Respondent Education and Playing by the Rules

There are important considerations when gathering information from respondents, no matter what sample recruitment method is used. Researchers must give respondents notification about exactly what data are being collected from them and their devices – and they must do so upfront. Additionally, detailed explanations should be provided, using appropriate terminology and language, regarding exactly what is being done with their data.

Mobile marketing research is not simply asking a user to answer a few specially designed survey questions.

By accessing a research application via a mobile device, companies can collect (often quite unintentionally) significant amounts of respondent information, such as location, mobile web or app behaviours, and a litany of other data points.

With new legislation and best practices released just this past year, it is important to follow all the appropriate rules and regulations, while being careful not to overwhelm the end user. This past fall, the United States Congress passed the Mobile Device Privacy Act, which was enacted to protect consumers by requiring disclosure of monitoring, consumer consent to data collection, and more. The parties collecting the data are also tasked with keeping information secure and safe.

Notifications of data being collected, identification of parties receiving the data, and other important disclosures need to be balanced so that the user is not overwhelmed.

Wording and the location of the disclosures within the research medium must be considered.

Remembering the Basics

Between the nuances of technology and the ever-changing political landscape around privacy, it’s hard to know where to start. Likely the most succinct explanation of what to keep top-of-mind, from respondent experience and privacy perspectives, comes from David Stark of GfK. His use of two very common (albeit racy) acronyms makes it easy to remember what to watch out for: vue January/February 2013

27

OMG O nline tracking data. This refers to the use of cookies in a browser to track a visitor on a website. Most of the time, this is harmless tracking – to see if the visitor is a returning user or to store data the user has previously entered in a site’s online forms. In some cases, though, cookies can be used to track a visitor across several different websites for the purpose of serving targeted ads or logging behaviour traits – a perfect example of the data a user likely hasn’t given permission to collect.

M etadata in photos. Metadata can include the type of device that was used to take the photo, the date and/or time it was taken, the aperture and shutter settings that were used, and the location where the photo was taken.

G eolocation. Geolocation is seen by many researchers as the holy grail. The longitude and latitude of where the user is at a particular point in time can be collected. Fortunately, users are usually prompted to authorize sharing their location before such data can be passed. Keep in mind the word usually – respondents should always be forewarned.

WTF W andering device IDs. These provide a way to assign a unique ID to a device across several applications (usually native apps). If a device has two published mobile apps, an ID could be assigned to one app, and doing so would identify the same user when the other app is opened. It’s similar in concept to how cookies can be used, but it’s appbased instead of web-based.

T oo complex privacy policies. This is self-explanatory. Have you ever read Facebook’s privacy policy? Your privacy policies should be succinct and easy to understand.

F ees for SMS and data streaming. Although SMS (short message service) and data fees are quickly becoming a thing of the past with unlimited data plans, it’s important to keep in mind that many respondents, particularly those in developing countries, do not have unlimited access to texting or data services.

Why It’s Important

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has famously been quoted as saying that kids today aren’t concerned about privacy. And it may be that the youth of today are less concerned with where their Facebook pictures end up next week or even next year. However, the fact remains that most

28

vue January/February 2013

online and mobile users expect (and even demand!) the right to control when and in what instances data are shared.

If mobile research privacy and security aren’t approached correctly, our industry as a whole risks losing access to innumerable respondents. Such an outcome could be devastating, considering the power of this medium. Mobile provides unparalleled ease of use, wide target audience accessibility, and overall efficiency. Mobile outreach allows the creation and distribution of time-sensitive materials to be quick and effective. Interactivity is boosted because of the medium; the ability to use a mobile device for response is an essential real-time marketing function.

In order to continue making safe and logical advances in this important field, many industry associations have issued guidelines governing mobile research. As recently as October 2012, ESOMAR released its new Guideline for Conducting Mobile Research, which primarily covers issues surrounding privacy and security. “Researchers must ensure that data sets or other materials (photographs, recordings, paper documents, etc.) collected for market research that contain personally identifiable information are kept securely and are only used for market research purposes.” Respondents should be notified about how their information is being used and stored. (The guideline is available at the ESOMAR website, www.esomar.org) The Endgame

Privacy issues aside, with all of the new technologies available today, research has the ability to create a direct and personal connection with respondents. Mobile devices in particular have the potential to be the ultimate relationship tool – considering that these modes are personal, deliver a one-to-one communication with mass market efficiencies, and are capable of distributing timely messages that provide measurable results.

Static, online surveys have struggled to be effective at engaging respondents. New tools and data-collection techniques are evolving to connect more effectively with respondents; and currently in development are many new research technologies that address the convergence of online and mobile respondents.

Embrace these new methods – but more importantly, be considerate, be ethical, and truly embrace marketing research’s most valuable resource: our respondents.

Kristin Luck is the president of Decipher, where she serves as the firm’s brand evangelist. A frequent industry contributor and speaker, she’s pretty much given up on any assumption of online privacy. You can reach out to her at her very public email address, kristin@decipherinc.com

IN D USTRY N E W S

RRS

RESEARCH REGISTRATION SYSTEM Since 1994, the RRS has allowed respondents to verify the legitimacy of a research project; helped legislators and regulators differentiate between legitimate survey researchers and unscrupulous telemarketers, phishers and scammers; and protected the industry from unnecessary and unwanted regulation.

RRS

MRIA’s Research Registration System (RRS) has long been a cornerstone self-regulatory mechanism for the marketing, survey and public opinion research and market intelligence industry in Canada.

Combined with other self-regulatory initiatives such as our Code of Conduct and Good Practice and our Charter of Respondent Rights, the RRS has paid huge dividends in protecting the industry’s positive reputation and good name with Canadians.

All Gold Seal and Basic Corporate Research Agency members of the Association are obligated to register all of their research projects with the RRS, and ClientSide Corporate members are encouraged to require their agency suppliers to do so.

MRIA’s Research Agency Council provides strategic, policy-level oversight of the Research Registration System, and receives aggregate data-only on the System’s performance.

Questions about the Research Registration System should be addressed to Sylvie Corbeil-Peloquin, Manager, Member Services, at 1-888-602-6742 or 905-602-6854, ext. 8726 or scorbeil@mria-arim.ca or, in her absence, Interim Executive Director, John Ball, CMRP at ext. 8724 or jball@mria-arim.ca.

Rules of Conduct and Good Practice For Members of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (2007):

Section A (5) Members must uphold the MRIA Charter of Respondent Rights.

Charter of Respondent Rights, Article 2 You can verify that the research you have been invited to participate in is legitimate in one of two ways. You can either obtain a registration number and the MRIA’s toll-free telephone number for any research registered in the MRIA’s Research Registration System or you can obtain the contact information of the research director who is conducting the study.

THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES HAVE REGISTERED RESEARCH PROJECTS WITH THE RESEARCH REGISTRATION SYSTEM DURING SEPTEMBER 2012: GOLD SEAL CORPORATE RESEARCH AGENCIES Advanis Inc. Advitek Inc. Blue Ocean Contact Centers Canadian Viewpoint Inc. Cido Research Consumer Vision Ltd. Corsential ULC Foundation Research Group Inc. Harris/Decima Inc. Head Count Hotspex Inc. Ipsos Reid MBA Recherche MD Analytics Inc. MQO Research Nanos Research NRG Research Group Opinion Search Inc. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. Research House Inc. Tele-Surveys Plus / Télé-Sondages Plus The Logit Group Inc. TNS Canadian Facts Trend Research Inc. BASIC CORPORATE RESEARCH AGENCIES Arcturus Solutions/Les Solutions Arcturus ERIN Research Network Research Field Services Inc. Sentiens Research INDIVIDUAL MEMBER ORGANIZATION Burak Jacobson Research Partners Inc.

www.mria-arim.ca/RRS

vue January/February 2013

29

IND USTRY N E WS

Wayback to the Future

of Online Evidence Ruth M. Corbin, CMRP and John McKeown1

The Internet already lets you live out a vicarious online life, perhaps more thrilling than your own, through sites like Second Life, Lively or There.com. Now, you can also travel back in time on the Wayback Machine to view certain websites as they were more than sixteen years ago. The Wayback Machine is an Internet search tool for archived web pages, which permits you to browse more than 150 billion web pages and other cultural artifacts in digital form, maintained in electronic storage since 1996. The free Wayback Machine service is offered by the non-profit agency “The Internet Archive,” viewable at http://archive.org/web/web.php.

The Wayback Machine is surely an exciting tool for market intelligence professionals. Protections have been put in place against possible abuse. The Internet Archive assures users that it does not do web-crawling into passwordprotected pages or pages on secure servers. Website owners who want to prevent capture of their pages by the Wayback Machine – or want to remove captured pages retroactively – can do so by tagging their pages for “robot exclusion.”

The Wayback Machine is also a tool of interest for lawyers who need historical information. For example, there are sometimes disputes about whether a brand or trade-mark had a reputation at some date far in the past. Or, there may be a dispute about whether a company has continued to use its trade-mark in the normal course of trade, as required to maintain its registration. Since companies may not anticipate legal challenges before they happen, pertinent Internet evidence may not be maintained – or even collected – at the relevant time. Patent registrants can also benefit from this tool. Patent registration requires a description of “prior art,” meaning any existing body of knowledge that relates to an invention. A thorough statement of prior art can help to confirm the novelty and non-obviousness of the proposed patent.

Like any evolving information-delivery vehicle, the Wayback Machine will have its tires kicked several times before it can be readily accepted as litigation-standard 30

vue January/February 2013

evidence. A recent case before the Canadian Trade-marks Opposition Board is illustrative. The case itself started way back in 2004. In that year, Reed Elsevier Group filed an application for the trade-mark REED EXHIBITIONS to be used for products and services associated, generally speaking, with tradeshows and exhibitions. Registration was opposed

by Reed Solutions (“the opponent”), an employment agency. Among the grounds of its opposition was a claim that Reed Elsevier had not used the trade-mark in Canada with sufficient recency (that is, not since its claimed date of “first use”) to permit registration. The opponent’s evidence included the affidavit of an articling student, containing results of a Wayback Machine search going back to 2002.

While the quality of evidence from the Wayback Machine was found to have limitations (in particular concerning the risk that historical sites may not be reproducible in their complete original form), and while the opponent was not ultimately successful in its case, the hearing officer for the Trade-marks Opposition Board found that Wayback Machine evidence could be accepted as generally reliable.

Her decision cited two earlier decisions of the Federal Court of Canada, and another of the Board in which Wayback Machine evidence had been similarly entertained. Quoting the earlier Board decision, she wrote: “I appreciate that there may be limitations to the accuracy of the Way Back Machine, including but not limited to possible hearsay issues. However, for the purpose of meeting the Opponent’s light initial burden under section 30(b), I find that the search results are sufficient to raise a doubt concerning the correctness of the Applicant’s claimed date of first use […]. The Applicant had the opportunity to file evidence to rebut the results of the Way Back Machine search but chose not to.”

In the few Federal Court cases in Canada in which Wayback Machine evidence has been filed, it appears to have been filed on consent of both parties, without detailed scrutiny. Courts in the United States and Australia have

IN DUSTRY N E W S

encountered more aggressive challenges to its legitimacy so there may yet be more test drives in Canada before evidentiary standards are worked out.

Five observations arise with respect to the interest by the market intelligence industry and legal profession in addressing the opportunities for this new-age evidence: • Demonstration that certain website pages “existed” historically is not conclusive on its own of the reach they achieved with website-browsing audiences.

be contentious, it will require submission by an arms-length witness.

• The Trade-marks Opposition Board’s receptive view of Wayback Machine results has been attributed in part to the relatively light burden of proof for which the results have been tendered. Concerns about its limitations will inevitably need to be addressed. Experts on search engines and web crawlers may find themselves in demand.

John McKeown focuses on providing advocacy and advice concerning intellectual property and related matters, including protecting trade-marks, copyrights, patents, confidential information and misleading advertising claims under the Competition Act. He is certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a specialist in Intellectual Property Law (Trade Marks/Copyright). Some of Canada’s largest marketers have relied on John’s advice. John is the author of Brand Management in Canadian Law, Canadian Intellectual Property Law and Strategy: Trademarks, Copyright and Industrial Designs, Fox, Canadian Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs.

1

• The Wayback Machine does not capture everything in the history of Internet pages. The percentage of pages captured for any given evidentiary purpose can never be known for certain. Therefore, pages found by the Wayback Machine can be taken as reasonably assured evidence of what did exist historically, but it will be more difficult to argue that absence of any relevant pages is proof that the requisite evidence did not exist.

• As described above, companies can use a “robot exclusion” tag on their websites to delete historical pages that may appear in Wayback Machine archives. It is conceivable that an aggressive opponent in a court battle could characterize such action as “destruction of evidence.”

• Although the REED EXHIBITIONS evidence was submitted by an articling student inside the law firm, legal precedent in Ontario suggests that if the evidence is likely to

Ruth M. Corbin, PhD, CMRP, is the managing partner of CorbinPartners Inc. and adjunct professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. She is chair of MRIA’s Litigation and Regulatory Resource Committee and of the association’s Research Agency Council. Ruth is also the co-author of the textbook Survey Evidence and the Law Worldwide. vue January/February 2013

31

IND USTRY N E WS

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH REGISTRY (QRR) In accordance with federal privacy laws, MRIA’s Qualitative Research Registry (QRR), or Registre de la recherche qualitative (RRQ) in French, was created to provide an ongoing, user-friendly vehicle for tracking those who do not want to be contacted or should not be contacted for qualitative research studies.

QRR is a comprehensive do not call list of those who have recently participated in qualitative research studies, those who have asked not to be contacted further, and those felt by recruiters and moderators to be best served by not being contacted.

These respondents are marked as “do not call” in accordance with established MRIA Standards.

All field and full-service companies are encouraged to submit a list of their qualitative respondents for entry into the QRR system each month, including those who do not wish to be contacted.

Participating firms will receive monthly updates of respondents to be screened from qualitative recruitment samples. QRR works effectively to increase the quality and integrity of the qualitative research process, by serving as a control to ensure respondents are not contacted more frequently than is necessary.

However, the ability of the system to function effectively is directly related to the co-operation received from firms who provide recruitment services.

If you are a full service research firm or field supplier that is currently participating in the Qualitative Research Registry program – thank you very much and keep up the good work!

If you are not currently participating, please get involved! If you are interested in submitting to QRR, please visit the MRIA website at www.mria-arim.ca/ QRD/QualResearchRegistry.asp for further explanation and guidance on how to submit qualitative research participants’ names, along with the required electronic forms.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH REGISTRY SUBMIS­SIONS SHOULD BE SENT TO: QRRQ@MRIA-ARIM.CA Submission templates and payment forms can be found at www.mria-arim.ca/QRD/QualResearchRegistryForms.asp

THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES HAVE SUBMITTED NAMES TO QUALITATIVE RESEARCH REGISTRY FOR SEPTEMBER 2012 ONTARIO Barbara C. Campbell Recruiting Consumer Vision Dawn Smith Field Management Services Inc. Head Count I & S Recruiting Ideaspace Ipsos Reid Opinion Search Quality Response Research House Inc.

QUEBEC Ipsos Reid MBA Recherche Opinion Search Research House Inc.

WEST Barbara C. Campbell Recruiting Ideaspace Ipsos Reid Opinion Search Research House Inc. SmartPoint Research Inc. Trend Research

ATLANTIC Head Count Ideaspace Opinion Search

Rules of Conduct and Good Practice for Members of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (2007), Section C Rules Specific to the Conduct of Qualitative Research: 20. R ecruiters should provide accurate data to the Qualitative Research Registry, where such exists, on a consistent basis and check all respondents against the Registry.

32

vue January/February 2013

21. M oderators buying recruiting services should give primary consideration to recruiting agencies which submit to the Qualitative Research Registry, where such a service exists, on a regular and ongoing basis.

IN D USTRY N E W S

PEOPLE AND COMPANIES IN THE NEWS •T o read more news online, or to submit your “People and Companies in the News,” s imply fill out our online form at www.mria-arim.ca/PEOPLE/People.asp.

• The Vue editorial team reserves the right to select and edit your submission for appearance in Vue. • MRIA is neither responsible for the accuracy of this information nor liable for any false information.

New Additions to Leger Metrics – Leger Metrics (formerly Agility Metrics) is pleased to announce that Josef Raffai has joined the Leger Metrics team as its new Vice President of Marketing and Sales. With over twenty years of experience in sales, marketing and business leadership, Joe brings a proven track record that will help Leger Metrics grow and develop new markets. Leger Metrics also recently added new talent Marlene Kohn, who held senior business development and consulting positions at Corsential, Rogers Media, Synovate (formerly Market Facts) and Hudson’s Bay Company, as Senior Sales Executive. Leger acquired a majority stake in Agility Metrics Inc., a Montrealbased software company specializing in Customer Experience Management solutions. www.legermarketing.com Survey Monkey Recapitalizes to Raise $800 Million – DIY research firm Survey Monkey has raised $800 million in debt and additional equity funding, partly led by Google’s new “late-stage” investment arm and CEO Dave Goldberg. The move – which values Survey Monkey at $1.35 billion – has been initiated to enable employees and early investors to “cash out” of the firm, which does not have plans to go public yet.

Around $450 million of the total will come from new investments from a number of early investors, including CEO Dave Goldberg (pictured) and Tiger Global Management. www.surveymonkey.com

Squeezed BrainJuicer Sheds 9 Per Cent of Staff – Online specialist BrainJuicer has made 9 per cent of its workforce redundant, saving £0.8 million in costs following “disappointing” trading in the final months of 2012. Back in November,

BrainJuicer predicted that revenue in the last quarter of the year would fall “significantly below” 2011 levels. Today in an interim trading statement, the firm has confirmed that in 2012 the seasonal increase in revenue during the final two months of the year fell “significantly short” of that in previous years. www.brainjuicer.com Matrix Research Is Now Officially Cido Research – To our valued clients and partners: As you may know, Matrix Research was acquired by Cido Research in July 2012 since which time it has operated as a separate brand within the Cido family. In order to better serve our clients, effective January 14, 2013; Matrix Research will officially become Cido Research. After January 14, you can still continue to expect the same great service and quality that you have become accustomed to with Matrix Research. The company directory and phone number will remain the same; however, the corporate website and emails will be updated to reflect this change. www.cidoresearch.com/ Survey Evidence: 2012 Year in Review – CorbinPartners Inc. annually catalogues references to survey evidence in decisions by Canadian courts and regulators related to intellectual property and other legal matters. This year we are including other sources of marketplace research, including social media, which are part of the new reality of social science expert evidence. To view the CorbinPartners 2012 Survey Evidence: Year in Review, http://www.mria-arim. ca/NEWS/PDF/SurveyEvidence2012YearinReview-CorbinPartners.pdf.

To complement the Year in Review compilation, and the expansion of marketplace evidence beyond surveys, http://www.mria-arim.ca/NEWS/ PDF/IntellectualPropertyJournalSurveysonaTightrope-Nov2012.pdf to view a relevant article just published in the Intellectual Property Journal.

Schlesinger Announces New Focus Group Facility and Usability Lab in St. Louis – The Insight Lab™ – a new, cutting-edge research facility which offers two unique qualitative research labs: The Digital Lab offers state-of-the-art usability technology that provides digital viewing via dualscreen capture of both the participant and the media, allowing observers to clearly follow emotional and physical reactions to the stimuli. The Research Lab inspires creativity as a spacious, contemporary loft-style focus group studio with exposed brick and timber beams. The large client viewing room includes a one-way mirror, comfortable, contemporary workstations and client lounge. www.SchlesingerAssociates.com Vision Critical and Academica Launch StudentVu Panel – In Canada, panel and research technology specialist Vision Critical, now an MRIA member, and research-based marketing consultancy Academica Group have teamed up to launch a new panel called StudentVu, which offers clients access to the opinions of university and college students. Academica, which focuses exclusively on the higher education sector, recruited thousands of post-secondary students for the new panel, which uses Vision Critical’s Community Panel management software. www.visioncritical.com Public Opinion Research in the Government of Canada - Annual Report 2011–2012 is now available / La recherche sur l’opinion publique au gouvernement du Canada – Rapport annuel 2011-2012 est maintenant disponible – The Public Opinion Research in the Government of Canada – Annual Report 2011-2012 is now available on our Web site at http://tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/rop-por/ rapports-reports/2011-2012/tdm-toceng.html. The report provides an overview of government-wide public opinion research (POR) coordinated vue January/February 2013

33

P ROFESSIONAL DE VE LO PME NT

and contracted by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) in the 2011-2012 fiscal year. helene.bleau@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca The Marketing Research Institute International (MRII) Announces Election of 2013 Board Officers and New Board Members – St. Louis, MO: MRII, a non-profit educational institute which, in partnership with the University of Georgia, is devoted to fulfilling the educational needs of people worldwide in the marketing research profession, is pleased to announce election results for its 2013 Board of Directors. To read the entire Press Release, http://www.mriaarim.ca/NEWS/PDF/MRII%20Elects%20 Its%202013%20Board%20News%20 Release.pdf MRA Counters Privacy Proposals – U.S. research body the MRA has filed comments with the FTC objecting to proposals from the privacy group EPIC over a settlement with data firm Compete, Inc regarding web tracking violations. MRA says the proposals could seriously impact the whole research profession. At the end of October 2012 the FTC proposed an agreement with Compete to settle charges that it “violated federal law by using its web-tracking software that collected personal data without disclosing the extent of the information that it was collecting [and] allegedly failed to honor promises it made to protect the personal data it collected.”

Three weeks later, on November 19, comments suggesting extensions to the terms were submitted by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). To read the entire Press Release, http:// www.mrweb.com/drno/news16603.htm

Marketing Research Institute International Awards Ron Kornokovich Distinguished Service Award and Emeritus Status – MRII, in conjunction with the University of Georgia (UGA), awarded Ronald Kornokovich its highest honour, the Distinguished Service Award and presented him with Emeritus status at its December 13, 2012 Board of Directors meeting in Miami, FL. www.georgiacenter.uga.edu Jason Bowen Promoted to Vice President of Client Development at Research Now – With the promotion of Jason Bowen to Vice President of Client Development for Canada, he will continue to grow both new and existing client relationships in the Canadian market, and will work closely with the client development team to drive new products to Research Now’s Canadian client base. Jason joined the company in 2004 and most recently served as Director of Client Development for North America. Jason also serves as a co-chair of Toronto’s Senior Leadership Team, and has managed several high calibre teams through two corporate mergers. www.researchnow.com Kinesis Survey Technologies Reports Mobile Survey Traffic Rates That Continue to Climb – An updated whitepaper provides comparative data from Q1 and Q3 2012 detailing the increasing usage of mobile devices among market research participants, and specifically the incidence at which various traffic metrics now occur on mobile devices versus desktop devices.

Statistics detailed in the whitepaper were compiled based upon metadata from all survey traffic hosted on Kinesis’ SaaS infrastructure during the first and

third quarters of 2012. Traffic breakouts are provided by device type, browser type, and geographic region. Also included are data relative to completion and dropout rates by device. www.kinesissurvey.com/whitepapers CRG Global Returns to Confirmit to Ensure Return on Investment – CRG Global, Inc. conducts nearly one million interviews with consumers every year on behalf of leading brands to better understand consumer wants and needs. Datatelligence, an online community of individuals who agree to voice their opinions regarding products and services they use on a daily basis, gathers feedback from its panel members, driving decision-making in companies looking to develop and improve products. http://confirmit.com/ success-stories/results-driven-research/ datatelligence-case-study.aspx GreenBook Announces New Content Platform to Aid the Innovation of the Insight Function – GreenBook, an organization that has been supporting the marketing research and consumer insights industry for over fifty years, has announced a new initiative promising to further fulfill its promise to “Chart the Future of Market Research™.”

Insight Innovation, the new platform launched today, aims to help brands and marketing research firms adapt to the rapid change due to surfacing technologies and innovative ways of gathering business intelligence. The Insight Innovation platform promises to connect brands, research suppliers, and emerging technology players, who offer innovative solutions for gathering insight. www.greenbook.org www.insightinnovation.com

People and Companies in the News sponsored by:

34

vue January/February 2013

P ROFE SS IONAL DE VELO PMEN T

MRIA to Revisit

CMRP Maintenance of Certification Points (MCP) System MRIA Institute for Professional Development

Institut de développement professionnel de l’ARIM

Stephen Popiel, CMRP

MRIA Institute for Professional Development

The Certification Advisory Committee led by Fergus Gamble, chair of the Educational Committee (CEC) and Stephen Popiel, dean of the Institute for Professional Development (IPD), have asked for and received the board’s approval to revisit and improve the process of MCP recognition over the next six months. Importantly, this means that all current CMRP holders will maintain their designation regardless of MCP points accumulated beyond the December 31, 2012 deadline. Additionally, your earned MCP points will carry over into next year as we work to improve the program.

Many years ago I learned that education came from the Latin “educere,” meaning to cause to grow (lead out of ignorance).

The goal of the MCP is to ensure that we all grow as MR professionals. What we need to do is build a program that acknowledges all forms of growth and that CMRPs may require different types of growth at different stages in their career. For some that may be learning conjoint, for others that may be leadership, management, or finance skills. And recent research in neuroscience has shown that learning a new skill can make overall brain function stronger. (Now I am not saying that I should be getting MCP points for learning the banjo – as I am currently doing – but I am saying that we need to re-evaluate what we give points for.)

Institute for Professional Development Institut de développement professionnel

Equally important to what is learned is how it is learned.

Although we typically think of education as something that comes from a classroom (be it physical or virtual) this is clearly not the way we all grow. New challenges at work (committees, making presentations, new job requirements) cause us to grow, as do other more mundane things like reading. In fact, many of us are probably required to set goals as part of our annual review process at work; I know we all do here at GfK. Should successful achievement of these goals count towards our MCP? The CEC and the IPD are examining both the what and the how of the MCP program and we need your help. Over the next few weeks you may be getting a call from the MRIA asking for your thoughts on the MCP process – what demonstrates growth and how growth can be realized. Please be ready for this call and help us rise to the challenge of building a better MCP process. And, if you can’t wait for the call please e-mail or call either Fergus or me with your thoughts on how we can improve the MCP program.

By undertaking this review and obtaining input and suggestions from you, our CMRP holders, the MCP system can be enhanced to realize its goal of ensuring that we are all growing.

Comments? Suggestions?

We’d like to hear from you at Stephen.Popiel@gfk.com and fergus.gamble@radixmr.com

vue January/February 2013

35

COLUMNISTS CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING! The Standards of Empathy Isabelle Landreville Sylvestre Marketing

Qualitative marketing research values privacy and ethics above all else. This may seem a little extreme if you consider interviews about cereal or soda, but privacy takes on an entirely different meaning when the context changes. As marketing researchers are sometimes mandated to discuss sensitive topics, there is much more driving our “only within the scope of the research” silence policies. The MRIA standards and policies exist to protect consumers and clients.

However, the vulnerable, earnest truth that is sometimes revealed in an interview is much more powerful in driving us to honour our “this will remain confidential” vows than any other standard.

Let me give you some examples: Imagine being a consumer with a medical condition that might push insurance com-

36

vue January/February 2013

panies to reject your application or that even your husband is not aware of; imagine being a secret party X advocate in a family that always votes Party Y and would judge you harshly for your opinion. In order for such people to share their insights, we must be sincere and empathetic. We must become therapists, listeners and friends, knowing when to ask and when to wait. Respondents often tell us stories that touch us in profound ways – personal anecdotes that they’ve never shared with anyone before. Our researchers can all recall respondents sharing stories with tears brimming in their eyes.

In reaching consumers, all products and services rely on the consumers’ context and that context’s lifeblood is the stories that inhabit their reality: the stories they tell their friends over dinner, the worries that keep them up at night. We must meet those people, show them we are trustworthy and gather those stories.

Then, it is our responsibility to communicate the messages from those tales to our clients while protecting the individuals who entrusted them to us – a worthwhile endeavor.

COLUMN I STS

STANDARDS MRIA Implementation of the Adoption of ICC/ESOMAR Code: An Update Donald Williams NADbank

The MRIA Standards Committee has made significant progress in moving ahead with the important task of implementing the adoption of the ICC/ESOMAR Code on Market and Social Research as a replacement for our current MRIA Code of Conduct and Good Practice.

Over the past twelve months the Standards Committee completed the following tasks: 1. U ndertook a full concordance review of the ICC/ESOMAR Code and its several related Guidelines/Best Practices documents against the MRIA Code; 2. F ormulated and finalized the Canadian addenda to the ICC/ ESOMAR Code; 3. Reviewed Qualitative Research Guidelines and identified potential discordance with the ESOMAR Code; 4. R eviewed/updated wording on the definition of “Child” and “Young Person”; 5. D rafted an introduction to the main MRIA Code and Guidelines (with specific mention to the adoption of the ICC/ESOMAR Code); 6. R eviewed the MRIA Gold Seal questionnaire for consistency with the ICC/ESOMAR Code.

The Standards committee is now in the final phase of creating a single document that will incorporate the ICC/ESOMAR Code and Guidelines and the addenda items as references to current MRIA code and guidelines applicable to Canada.

Once a draft document becomes available, the MRIA will develop a communication plan for dissemination of ICC/ ESOMAR Code to MRIA Members.

photo (including everything he had assumed was deleted).

The lesson: In cyberspace, nothing ever truly disappears.

Everything we type or upload virtually is stored somewhere up in the cyberspace, ready to return to your world at any moment.

Now we know there are growing concerns towards privacy and online social networking sites, but it’s important to understand to what degree people feel bothered by an explicit display of our lives being only a Google search away as the boundary between public and private becomes more and more blurry.

A recent study reported that 55 per cent of online users worry that technology is robbing us of our privacy, and 6 in 10 think people are wrong to share so many of their personal thoughts and experiences online. Around a third regret things they have posted online and nearly half (47 per cent) worry that friends or family will share personal information online about them that they don’t want to be made public, most likely attributed to society losing sight of what is personal vs. private anymore*.

As it’s clear that our reliance on digital and social media is here to stay, we need to pay particular attention to the implication that this permeable privacy boundary will have on younger generations who tend to be the most willing to share everything and anything within the virtual space – 70 per cent agree that young people today have no sense of personal privacy*.

When information is out there for everyone, and when anyone is able to post, tweet, forward, share, and comment on every subject imaginable in real time, it seems like no one can control the flow of information, and as a result what one once considered as “privacy” may soon cease to exist. * This Digital Life, Prosumer Report 2012

QUALITAS

BRAVE NEW WORLD

Why Up Close Should Never Be That Personal: Respecting Privacy

What Happens on Facebook, Stays on Facebook

Kelly Adams – Ipsos Reid UU

Leanne Bodnar Fresh Intelligence Research Corp.

Last year, Max Schrems, an Austrian man, took advantage of Europe’s privacy laws and asked that Facebook send him all the information it had been tracking on him.

What he received was far more than he expected: 1,222 PDF files, to be exact. Everything he ever did on the social networking site had been recorded and retained – every friend, “like”, comment, status update, private message, and

Protecting participant privacy and respecting the right to anonymity are important in all marketing research methodologies, but they are even more crucial to keep in mind in the qualitative research world, because there is exposure to the participant as an individual person and in a less structured protocol.

There’s an urban legend (at least, I hope it’s an urban legend) that used to be told about someone from behind the mirror being smitten by a respondent in the focus group, and vue January/February 2013

37

COLUM N ISTS

asking the moderator to get the woman’s phone number for him. Majorly creepy – which is why I hope it’s legend and not fact!

But I can understand how someone – especially someone who doesn’t live full-time in the qualitative world – could forget for a moment that qualitative research is not really a social situation, but a business contract.

Qualitative research can “feel” very social: that is its strength. Often it happens face-to-face. People allow us into their homes, or we meet them for coffee, or we ask them to text us when something happens. We work hard to set people at their ease; we use conversation to listen for the learning; we get people to talk about themselves, their lives, their habits, their families, their foibles, their … their … their …. All these are the same protocols that one uses to establish friendships, find a mate, and interact with our fellow human beings.

Qualitative research gets us up close and personal with the participants. Refreshing our memories on what we as an industry have identified as our responsibility to our respondents, especially pertaining to their privacy and anonymity, reminds us that we are only allowed up close for so long, and then everyone goes their separate ways.

INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY What Makes a Creative Person?

Margaret Imai-Compton, CMRP Principal, Imai-Compton Consulting Inc.

An interesting list is circulating in creative communities, entitled “12 Most Striking Tendencies of Creative People” (www.12most. com). I’ve touched on a few of these points in past columns including 2 (Take risks), 4 (“What if …”) and 6 (Collaborate).

According to list designer, Kim Phillips, creative people are different because they: 1. Are easily bored The creative person has grasped one concept and is ready for the next.

2. Are willing to take risks Anything new requires a bit of change, and most of us don’t care for change that much.

3. Don’t like rules The creative person needs freedom in order to work.

4. Ask “what if…”

Curiosity is probably the single most important trait of creative people.

5. Make lots of mistakes Creation is a long process, involving lots of boo-boos along the way. A lot goes into the trash.

6. C ollaborate Creative people all get a little better by sharing with others in their fields.

38

vue January/February 2013

7. A re generous Truly creative people aren’t afraid to give away their hardearned knowledge.

8. A re independent Stepping off the beaten path may be scary, but creative people do it. Children actually do this very well but are eventually trained to follow the crowd.

9. E xperiment Trial and error are necessary to the creative process.

10. M otivate themselves They are willing to run the inherent risks of doing something new in order to get a new result.

11. Work hard This is probably the most overlooked trait of creative people.

Experienced creative people have developed processes and discipline that make it look easy.

12. A ren’t alone The good news is that it’s possible for everyone to be creative by embracing and using creative traits.

Challenge yourself to take up one or more of these traits with intent and apply them consciously to your creative process.

JUNE 2–4, 2013 SHERATON ON THE FALLS NIAGARA FALLS I ONTARIO

JOIN US FOR THE 2013 MRIA NATIONAL CONFERENCE A unique event, a world-class landmark Participate fully as Sponsor, Speaker, Exhibitor, Award Winner and Delegate!

For more information, visit our official website at www.mria-arim.ca/Conference2013/NEWS/index.php