Sneak Preview: Instant Research Communities Officially Launch At The End Of March!

n+1 and a brief history of chatting

I love the articles in n+1, but this week they’ve posted an excerpt from an article called  “Chathexis” that REALLY speaks to us, a group of people who make a living providing a way to “chat” with strangers. The article gives a brief history of chatting, spanning from the invention of the couch (it’s being comfortable AND being able to sit with a friend and talk!) to AOL to gchat. They write:

“Previously, we’d decided which screen names to include on our “Buddy Lists” (poor AOL: it came first and had to name the animals, and it named them in a corporate-Midwestern way that couldn’t help but become comically creepy). Gmail made the choices for us, pulling names from our email contacts. It was like standing outside the door of a party that all your friends had been invited to. Maybe they had already arrived!”

The entire article is witty, smart, and true, but we were mainly interested in how our users and readers thought of “chat.” What do we gain from chatting now, almost 20 years after AOL’s IM system began? What does chatting lend us that video or in-person conversations cannnot?

image via http://k8thebounce.blogspot.com

n+1′s take on videochatting is hilarious. They write:

“There is something so literal about video. It reminds you of a world that can’t imagine anything but itself. It’s almost as bad as walking down the street. Our friends are made over into evasive strangers: just try making eye contact in videochat. You can’t. It’s as bad as a first date, or a job interview—you sit there, face to face with another human being, and feel unseen. Videochat’s promise of intimacy—friends on the other side of the world, looking at us in our homes!—makes us forget the conditions in which actual intimacy occurs. Where have we had our best conversations? When we were sharing a booth with someone in the back of a dark bar, or lying in bed, or walking somewhere, or nowhere at all, our faces turned in the same direction: outward, toward the world, into which we moved forward together. We arrive at a shared perspective when we do, actually, share a perspective—when we take, quite literally, the same view of things. Then, turning away from that view—and toward each other—can mark a moment of surpassing agreement or sympathy. There are no such moments in videochat.”

Sometimes, users will ask us at GutCheck if we plan to implement video chatting. And we do — there is a demand for the capability, so we’ll meet that demand because that is what we do. But whenever people bring this up to me, I tend to shy away from the idea. Maybe it’s because, at 25, I am someone who has grown up with all of the computer-based conversational tools touched on in the article. Because I grew up comfortable IM-ing and I still spend all day on gchat (BUT NOT ALWAYS CHATTING, guys! I am a GOOD WORKER!). Something about the video chat seems awkward. You’re hyperaware. You can see your own face staring back at you, in the corner of the screen. You can’t do anything else, it feels cheap. Long distance relationships feel more strained. The distance is palpable. It hurts more.

n+1 suggests that the one-on-one, intimate setting afforded by chatting at home, on the couch, or in bed, is our secret to continual attention and good conversation:

“Gchat’s bright bulbs go out, one by one, until a single circle glows hopefully. Like Gatsby’s green light, it is the promise of happiness. [...] Gchat has at times liberated us from this dialogue of the deaf, and provided us with a template for another way of talking.”

So what do you all think of the video/text chat concept? Has the way you communicate changed — and what do you prefer? How do you talk?

Tech Crunch: LinkedIn “Men are More Savvy Networkers than Women”

So, the headline says it all. LinkedIn (apparently following in the footsteps of OKCupid by publishing findings based on user data/behavior) “measures networking ‘savviness’ based on the the ratio of one-way connections that men have to connections that women have, and the ratio of male members on LinkedIn to female members.” Which — WHAT? I’m not quite sure about the science behind that data, or the idea of conflating “followers,” “friends,” or “connections” with influence, but let’s give LinkedIn the benefit of the doubt and assume that men are more savvy networkers. Why would that be?

(Image via Keppie Careers)

I mean, one might point to the fact that in a lot of industries (mine included), women are the minority, or in less prestigious roles. Or that women are still making less money to the dollar than men. Or that women haven’t occupied corporate roles for as long as men.

Or maybe women think LinkedIn is kind of stupid.

A few months ago Gail Collins wrote an Op-Ed commenting on the Obama “state of American women” report that came out in March. Go ahead and read it — and then return to the LinkedIn story.

Are women less savvy online networkers than men? What do you think of this data, and how have you seen women network in your industry?

And what might this data say about the state of women in America?

From Princess to [Mc]Queen

Though we’ve been hearing about the Royal Wedding for months, today was the day to really gauge reactions to the most important part of the cermony: The Dress. Many news outlets, bloggers, and people we’ve over heard on the elevator have already speculated that this is the day long sleeved wedding dresses made their comeback.

So Adam and I set up our own GutCheck on this trend, setting up a chat guide to dig deeper into what women who were planning on getting married in the next five years thought of the dress. I mean, what kind of U.S. Americans would we be if we didn’t want to know?

(image via The Atlantic photo gallery)

In the recruitment engine we specified that we wanted to only talk to women aged 18-35 who were not currently married. We then set up custom questions to find respondents who were in a committed relationship or engaged and planned on celebrating a wedding or civil union in the next 5 years. Next, we both logged into team edition so we could get 4 chats in an hour, and we asked away. And it turns out? Women really wanted to talk about their future wedding dresses and give details about what did and didn’t work for Kate’s. For example (all quotes are verbatim and [sic]):

“i mean that it seems like a dress that you would see in the fairytale wedding that you watch on tv.It is not unique and is a dress that seems like it belongs to a certain venue (such as a church). It isn’t the kind of dress that can be worn anywhere and can’t be worn by every body type. It is cliche in that it fits theprincess fairytale wedding” – Respondent A, age 25, living with partner, described personal style as “trendy, flashy,  and new age.”

“The lace fits but I would have an open back and i would not have long sleeves. but it is definitely a beautiful dress that I am sure plenty of brides will copy.” – Respondent B, age 24, living with partner, described personal style as “traditional, comfortable, and classic.”

One woman really loved the dress and overall aesthetic, and could see herself emulating the look:

“The detailing on the dress is amazing. I also like how it’s simple but elegant. Nothign over the top, but beautiful in the exquisite details… I’ve just never been an over-the-top kind of dresser or anything like that, but I have always been drawn to the little details of clothes, dresses, etc., so I am going to probably be the same way for my wedding dress.” – Respondent C, age 23, engaged, described personal style as “simple, sporty and modern.”

And as for the sleeves? Surprisingly, none of our four respondents saw themselves resurrecting the full, long sleeved look. Here’s what two had to say:

“I am not a big fan of sleeves, and I really like the sleeveless look of a wedding dress. I think it looks beautiful on her, but it’s not something that I would go for in my dress.” – Respondent C

“the dress looks similer to what I have in mind. I dont care fo rthe full length sleeves, I would look for something with 3/4 sleeves or witha removable over lay/lace jacket. I like the idea of a strapless dress but have something to cover my arms.” – Respondent D, age 28, in a committed relationship, described personal style as “vintage, casual, fun.”

While some of us here at the GutCheck office were more interested in The House of McQueen’s showing than others, we had fun asking young women about their own future wedding gowns, and they responded eagerly, with very little probing or follow up. After an hour, we ended up with 8 pages of transcript and lots of ideas for wedding dresses. Not too bad for a couple of office dwellers curious about long sleeved dresses!

(And no, we didn’t dress up for the occasion, though had someone offered us scones, tea, or wedding cake we wouldn’t have turned it down).

Education, Efficiency and Encouragology: a Community is Born

In July of 2010, David Armano wrote a guest blog for the Harvard Business Review advising companies to fire their marketing manager and hire a community manager. Fortunately, we value Marshall too much to let him go. We did feel, however, that we needed someone around to help our growing client base ask better questions, get better results, and engage in the kind of information sharing necessary to make GutCheck work for them. So we sat down for lunch with Elizabeth Taddonio, who was working as a QC with our partner, iModerate, and she explained all of the tasks she saw herself performing as a community manager – chief among them customer support, education and social media integration. Now, she’s sitting in our offices hard at work, acting as your point of communication and your new best friend (in qualitative research and in real life, Elizabeth will never turn down a new friend or a slice of pizza. Never.).

Formally Elizabeth holds an MA and a BA in communication studies, with a focus on visual rhetoric and new media studies. Informally, she likes to tell people that she’s a licensed “encouragologist”. According to Elizabeth, encouragology is the science of understanding a person’s objectives and getting them from start to finish with as much ease, efficiency, and enjoyment as possible. As community manager, Elizabeth will act as the bridge between GutCheck and our users – bringing them together and translating user needs and wants into new offerings with the GutCheck product.

Though GutCheck is currently working hard to make DIY qualitative research accessible to all types of researchers, from advertising executives to academics, we also feel that the site should offer opportunities for users to continue to hone their focus group and one-on-one interviewing skills. As a qualitative research coach, Elizabeth will be there to help you decide which guide is right for you, which questions you need to be asking, and which audience will give you the optimum insight into your project. Think of Elizabeth as your partner, giving you freedom to work on your own project while working as your advocate and constantly sharing new skills and techniques to make that project run at its best.


Lastly, as Chris Brogan wrote in his Essential Skills of a Community Manager post, Elizabeth will act as “good party host mixed with a fine restaurant host.” That is, it’s her goal to help make connections between GutCheck users as researchers, allowing them to share their knowledge and help make qualitative research do-able. Along with Marshall, she’ll merge social media with user experience and insight, welcoming an internal community of like-minded researchers while maintaining the product’s performance.