Beware of GroupThink Dangers

Posted February 3, 2012 by Matt Warta | Permalink

Qualitative insights teams have traditionally relied heavily on focus groups – bringing respondents together to discuss a topic and open up some insights. However, among problems with recruiting geographically diverse audiences, and the costs associated with running in-person groups, one of the biggest issues researchers find is the problem of “GroupThink.”

The New York Times recently published an article about the rise of “GroupThink,” a phenomenon that comes into play when people work together, whether brainstorming or being forced to collaborate on work or school projects. The author asserts, “People in groups tend to sit back and let others do the work; they instinctively mimic others’ opinions and lose sight of their own; and, often succumb to peer pressure.”

Moderators who run focus groups see the same thing – one very vocal respondent will overpower more introverted respondents. Or others make take a backseat while a few respondents attempt lead the discussion.

The most fascinating thing about the Times piece, however, is the fact that the negative aspects of GroupThink have not been seen in ONLINE collaborative groups. The article states, “The one important exception to this dismal record is electronic brainstorming, where large groups outperform individuals; and the larger the group the better. The protection of the screen mitigates many problems of group work.” That is, when people are allowed to express their ideas online, and not in in-person groups, larger groups actually thrive.

At GutCheck, we spent significant time over the last year thinking of how to make online group discussions more valuable, quick and affordable. We are anxious to unveil this to the world in the near future.   This New York Times article is great validation for what we are seeing with our new group discussion product – being “alone together” in an online discussion can be extremely valuable.  We are excited to be able to share more on group discussions in the weeks to come, so stay tuned!  

Read the full NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-the-new-groupthink.html?_r=2

Posted in Insights from CEO, Uncategorized | Bookmark Bar

GutCheck is growing!

Posted January 13, 2012 by Matt Warta | Permalink

We had a great 2011. We won the prestigious DEMO Award; have done awesome work with some great clients; and have added some great people to our team. Going into 2012, we are focused on building a team that will allow us to achieve our goal of making research accessible to brands of all sizes. The first role we are hiring for in 2012 is the VP of Product. We have a huge opportunity to be THE web-based platform for doing qualitative research. In order to do that, we need a great product leader who can take our product vision and make it a reality. If you are that person, send us an email, your contact information and complete resume to careers[@]gutcheckit[dot]com, or if you know of anyone who fits the description below, please pass it along.

You’ll be seeing more job postings in the near future

********

VP/Director of Product – Job Description

GutCheck is a well-funded and resourced start up who has developed an award winning online qualitative market research platform that provides near-instant access to a brand’s audience for qualitative research – the right people at the right time for the right result.

The VP/Director of Product will be the unifying force behind GutCheck’s product strategy and execution, combining feedback from sales, marketing, development, customers and partners to set product direction and lead the execution on new features and products. This is an important and strategic role within the company, and our expectations are equally high. The VP/Director of Product will work directly with the CEO to prioritize product and customer requirements, define the product direction, and work closely with development to continue to deliver a remarkable product.

The VP/Director of Product is expected to:

• Create and manage the overall Product Development process at GutCheck 
• Gather and analyze feedback from sales, marketing, development and the market 
• Lead our internal process to define the product strategy, roadmap and priorities 
• Develop requirements documents and use cases for new product features 
• Monitor the status of development projects supporting new features 
• Conduct business-level verification and market testing of new features 
• Become an expert on other products in the marketplace 
• Be a go-to person and strategic leader within the company

Desired experience and expertise:

• 10 years of participating in and leading product development for web-based software products (B2B or B2C) in a small company environment. 
• Experience with agile development processes and monthly or weekly product release cycles 
• Passion for and heavy consumer of web-based software products – both B2B and B2C. 
• Social application development experience a big plus “Roll-up-your-sleeves” entrepreneurial, startup attitude 
• Natural ability to relate to customers and prospects
• Ability to work with different people across a team effectively 
• Remarkable references 
• Bachelors degree

Compensation:

• Cash and equity compensation will be commensurate with the experience and the roles and responsibilities of this position

Posted in Career Postings, Uncategorized | Bookmark Bar

On The Road: Pacing Interviews for Precision

Posted June 2, 2011 by Elizabeth Taddonio | Permalink

In the early ’90s Chris Farley created “The Chris Farley Show” sketch for SNL, where he spent 5 or 10 minutes interviewing a celebrity, breathing heavily, and asking them if they remembered certain scenes from their films or moments in their careers. The result was an awkward (AND HILARIOUS) clip in which celebrities sat wondering what would happen next. Zack Galifianakis does a brilliant take on it with “Between Two Ferns” as well.

One of the major problems with these interviews (to be fair there are bigger problems than this), and one of the biggest differences between doing an interview in person and doing one online, is pacing. This means making sure you’re asking questions at a good rate and not bombarding a respondent or leaving them in moments of dead air or silence, while also keeping that respondent on track and checking in with them if their responses are taking longer than usual.

Generally qualitative research online yields about 3-4 exchanges every 5 minutes. This means the moderator can expect to see responses within 1-2 minutes. For this reason, it’s imperative that researchers create a chat guide with time factored in, and that they prioritize talking points accordingly. You can download our sample discussion guides, which have marked off time for pacing, if you’d like a quick reference.

The CDC offers an online guide to pacing interviews that can also help. Though their advice applies mainly to conducting phone surveys, similar guidelines can be used online:

• “One effective interviewer technique involves reading the introduction section a little quicker. Because this is a common place for respondents to quit or hang up, don’t pause for very long at the end of the introduction—read the first question right away.” — This is true for online interviews, too. Having preloaded questions means being able to quickly let the respondent know not only that you’re there and you’re engaged, but also what they’ll be discussing with you for 30 minutes. Hooking a respondent right away is important, and it also gives you the opportunity to reject a respondent and start over (with GutCheck, if you do this within 5 minutes you won’t be charged).
• “A mistake made by some interviewers is to speed up at the end of an interview because they are getting tired and no longer have the patience they had in the beginning. Respondents can feel this and often interpret it as a lack of caring. They can feel your restlessness and will often just quit.” By the end of the chat, you might feel like you’re ready to get out and leave. But showing a respondent the same kind of dedication you showed at the beginning — probing, asking follow up, mirroring their language — will keep the quality of your results from waning.
• “There are other times where you may ask the respondent a question that needs some thought to give an answer. In this case you may need to slow it down to get a good response. Sometimes you simply need to wait for a response from the respondent.” A lot of times, I am asked how long to wait before checking in with a respondent. If the moderator asks an involved question that needs more thought and time, give the respondent sufficient time. Keeping in mind about a minute or two for response requires patience. Practice!

The bottom line is that keeping your time limits in mind, and shaping a guide around those limits, will keep a respondent engaged and motivated, and will ensure that you’re hitting all of your objectives in the priority you see fit.

On The Road is an on-going series on how to conduct one-on-one qualitative interviews. Previously: Using Objectives. Next up: Probing, follow up, and getting more.

Posted in On The Road, Uncategorized | Bookmark Bar

Taylor Swift, Danzig and the art of segmentation

Posted May 20, 2011 by Matt Warta | Permalink

I talked with the wrong person.

Have you ever found the perfect moment to drop a movie reference – except no one in the crowd high-fives you because none of them have any idea what you’re talking about?

What about mentioning a topic important to you during a business meeting, expecting an excited validation or interested rebuttal– only to see the look of “meh” cross the other person’s face?

That’s not the best use of anyone’s time (and sometimes it’s just plain embarrassing). However, there is a way to avoid it.

Speaking with the right person by targeting demographics, behavioral preferences, interests or product usage makes the conversation more beneficial for all parties involved.

Would Taylor Swift’s camp want to advertise to Lil Jon fans or fans of Danzig?
Look at theFacebook advertising or the recently discussed “filter bubbles” at TEDx.
Targeting and understanding what people “Like” will very likely get your message to the right crowd based on how they’ve previously behaved online. There’s no sense in advertising Taylor Swift’s fan page or album to fans of Lil Jon.

Similarly, why ask non-Smartphone users about how they respond to a new app idea? It’s not the best use of money and resources, simply because the product is not targeted for them.

In consumer insights business, you could speak with random folks about your product or service and not learn much. Net result, maybe someone who could use your product/service learns about it and you learn that you’re not speaking with the right person.

Now, if you could quickly target someone – say your consumer audience – and pull someone in for a conversation based on purchase frequency, preference for brand or whatever you needed to talk to them about, you could glean a lot.

Likewise, adjusting factors like household income, age, and ethnicity can give you access to different segments so that you may get a better all-around understanding of how people react to your concepts, ads, packages, websites, etc.

Altering your segments — seeing if 18 – 24 year olds feel the same or intend to purchase the same as 32-44 year olds – can help a business learn if what they’re selling or advertising will work across various segments of their target market, leading to a successful campaign.

So if you’re talking about an advertising campaign or messaging that doesn’t resonate with the right audience (*ahem – Skechers – ahem*) or launch a re-branding effort that fails (*cough – GAP – cough*), you can lose a lot. Business, consumers, revenue take a hit an ensuring that you’ll get the feedback you could have heard if you had originally talked to the right people.

Posted in Uncategorized | Bookmark Bar

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research Studies: Market Research 101

Posted May 5, 2011 by Elizabeth Taddonio | Permalink

Quantitative research, in its most basic form, boils down to numbers: The idea is to ask a question of enough people to statistically estimate the general viewpoints of a large population. That is to say, it involves breaking a question down into a scale or into defined choices, then tallying up how a large sample of people have responded.

Qualitative research involves asking broader, more open-ended questions that cannot be quantified or broken into defined choices. In qualitative research, the interviewer is trying to elicit reactions and opinions from potential and/or actual users of a product or service in order to gain a more in-depth understanding of an issue – it can help researchers interpret and elaborate on data that might not be apparent from using just numbers or pre-defined answer choices. Because it involves more in-depth questioning, and asks respondents to provide their own answers and experiences, qualitative research usually involves a smaller sample over longer time.

(Photo “Conversation, NYC 1970″ via)

We see quantitative research a lot in the news – 55% of people say they approve of Candidate X, or 74% of people said that they felt better/the same as/ worse about themselves after reading Beauty Magazine. It’s a quick way to make a general point. But sometimes, these general statements have a lot of nuance. For instance, The New York Times reported yesterday that President Obama’s approval ratings have increased since the announcement of the death of Osama bin Laden:

Nearly half [of polled US Americans] said the nation should decrease troop levels in Afghanistan. But more than six in 10 also said the United States had not completed its mission in Afghanistan, suggesting that the public would oppose a rapid withdrawal of all American forces.

Enter here the need for qualitative research follow up – suggestions from the quantitative numbers need clarification found in one-on-one interviews. Would the public truly oppose a rapid withdrawal of American forces? What kinds of conditions would they want to be met in a withdrawal? What factors did they consider when judging the completion of the mission in Afghanistan?

The Times understood this, and later recontacted its quantitative respondents:

One Democrat polled, Richard Olbrich, 68, said in a follow-up interview that Bin Laden’s death was not sufficient reason to remove all American forces.

“The Taliban needs to be defeated,” said Mr. Olbrich, a lawyer from Madison, Wis. “I have no idea how long it will take to complete that mission. And we can’t leave until Afghanistan is back on its feet a little bit.”

As I have mentioned before, quantitative and qualitative methods have important places in market research. While popular platforms for quantitative research include SurveyMonkey.com and Zoomerang – right now the only way to conduct online qualitative research on your own is through GutCheck. This is why our goal is to make the qualitative research space as accessible and easy to use as the quantitative research tools currently available. Numbers can talk, but sometimes that voice needs to be singled out and asked “why”?

101 is an on-going series on how to effectively use qualitative methods in market research. Up next: Matching your project with the right method.

Posted in DIY Research, Market Research 101, qualitative research, quantitative research, Uncategorized | Bookmark Bar