Extra Support: Avoiding Double-Barreled Questions

Posted April 24, 2012 by Elizabeth Taddonio | Permalink

A lot of times, we see our users translating guides originally written for phone interviews or open-ended online quantitative surveys onto the GutCheck platform. What sticks out most — and tend to be mistranslated– are double-barreled questions. Double-barreled questions are any questions that ask the respondent to address more than one point or issue at a time. For example, asking the respondent,

What is this product? How is it different from other products on the shelf?

is really getting at two separate, though related, points. Three-quarters of the time, a respondent will only address the first question, which forces the moderator to follow up with the second. Another example is the closed-ended, open-ended follow up double-barreled question. For example:

Does this remind you of any other brand of products? If yes, what?

Asking a close-ended question and immediately following up might seem like a good way to get information, but in our experience, most respondents will answer the easiest or most direct part and not follow up with explanation. This can cause some confusion for first-time GutCheck guidewriters, since they might initially think their exchanges will take less time.

Though it might seem painfully simplified, it’s important to really break up your guide into individual exchanges, and then give yourself 2-3 minutes built in for some probing and organic follow-up.

Have more questions about writing a guide? Visit our support page here and here to learn more!

Posted in DIY Research, Extra support, qualitative research | Bookmark Bar

Extra Support: Watching the clock

Posted April 5, 2012 by Elizabeth Taddonio | Permalink

With the GutCheck tool, moderators are given 30 minutes to get through their objectives. We’ve even included a timer that flashes yellow at 10 minutes left and red at 5 minutes left. Yet it’s common for moderators, even those who are very experienced, to lose track of time. In those instances, the best thing you can do is follow your objectives, not feel pressure to stick strictly to your guide.

Regarding both objectives and stimuli, the guide is often broken into sections of questions. So, in a case where a moderator might be showing 3 separate concept statements and then gauging reactions, the moderator can anticipate 3 separate sections of questions. It should be the moderator’s prerogative to watch the clock to give roughly equal amounts of time to each section.

For example, assuming that we devote 3-5 min to an introduction and a wrap-up/conclusion, a moderator is roughly left with 20 minutes of time to cover their objectives. If you know you have 3 pieces of stimuli to get through with probing, you should watch the clock and allow ~7 min of attention to each. During those 7 min, moderators should focus on answering objectives rather than sticking to the guide verbatim. This may mean skipping other portions of the guide – and that’s ok.

One way to make this easier on yourself might be to keep a printed out guide, with questions highlighted by objective, near you while you moderate. This way, you can get a feel for your pacing as you start to conduct chats on a new guide!

For more tips on online moderating, check out our support page. Happy chatting! B-)

Posted in Extra support, tips and tricks | Bookmark Bar

Upcoming GutCheck Education Event: Unlock The Secrets Of Instant Research Communities

Posted April 3, 2012 by Ken Giffin | Permalink

Last week, GutCheck formally announced the launch of Instant Research Communities. We’ve spend the first quarter testing out this new technology with some of our clients and are now live! We’ve been receiving a lot of buzz in the media, including Brand Channel and WSJ.

Next week, we are launching our first GutCheck Education Series event with a live 30-minute webinar with Adam Kramer, Director of Product Development from GutCheck. Adam will walk through our new Instant Research Community platform, the story behind the launch and how our first customers have been able to launch a community and start getting consumer feedback in the same day! He will also show attendees how easy it is to use our panel of over 6 million respondents to join your community or how you can leverage your own corporate assets such as customer lists or social media fans.

Join us THURSDAY APRIL 12TH AT 11:00 AM EASTERN TIME for this 30-minute webcast. Register here today.

And if you can’t make this particular time slot but want more information on Instant Research Communities, you can email us and we’ll be happy to answer your questions!

Posted in Checkin' It Out, Instant Research Community, Webinar | Bookmark Bar

Extra Support: Ad-libbing and emoticons :)

Posted March 8, 2012 by Elizabeth Taddonio | Permalink

More often than you’d think, in online chatting, respondents are under the impression that they are being interviewed by bots. I blame SIRI and her stupid parent Smarterchild for this. Chatbot software has been around since the 90s, so respondents are smart enough to look out for this kind of “interviewer.” So how do you let a respondent know you’re not a bot?

 

1. Ad-lib. This means responding to their questions  in  a personalized way, and rolling with the conversation as it shifts and evolves. For example, if you have to continue to probe on their use of a certain adjective, come at it from a human perspective. One of my favorite phrases in a chat is, “I know this might sound obvious, but tell me more about what makes it easy to use, for you specifically. I am trying to really get at your perspective on this process ”

Which brings me to the next point…

2. Use emoticons! Emoticons get a bad (dorky) rap because they’re common in things like email forwards and also they are kind of silly. But tossing in a smiley face at the right time can do wonders for conveying your tone. Of course, there is a limit to what smiley faces to use. I would limit it to the classic smiley — it’s a friendly reminder that you get what they’re trying to say, you’re pleased with the feedback, and you want to encourage them to get going. A winkface might be appropriate in  emails and texts, but I’d say 8/10 sending a winkface to a respondent is kind of creepy and/or weird. I used a shades face once when a respondent wrote “Hey Elizabeth! Sounds like a cool idea” at the beginning of a chat, but that might also have been because I was in a weird mood. Sad faces are generally also unnecessary, as even if a respondent says he or she does not like a concept, package, ad, etc, sending a sad face implies judgement. Maybe if a respondent tells you his or her pet recently died, then you can send a sadface. But only then. 

For more tips on online moderating, check out our support page. Happy chatting! B-)

Posted in Extra support | Bookmark Bar

Extra Support: Seeing stars (and giving them meaning)

Posted February 21, 2012 by Elizabeth Taddonio | Permalink

A few months ago GutCheck implemented a system for rating respondents. Not only did this allow us to understand why certain chats were ‘bad’ and ‘good’, as time goes by it will also allow us to see which respondents have repeat positive or negative ratings.

Now, you can also track your transcripts through star ratings. This will allow you to isolate the best chats, and save the less vocal respondents for later analysis if needed. This quick, at-a-glance reporting is meant to save you time when sorting through data for patterns and verbatims.

We’re always eager to understand more about how our community of researchers is making the tool work, and what kinds of things we can do to improve. Leave us your product feature requests at our community page, here. And, as always, let support know if you have any issues with the tool!

Happy chatting!

Posted in Extra support, Features | Bookmark Bar