Consider getting access to exclusive RBDR benefits on Patreon! Click here for more information.
———————————————————————-
March 21, 2018. Today on RBDR:
Research Rockstar President Kathryn Korostoff responds to Bob Lederer’s commentary about the rivalry between traditional research and digital research–and she could not disagree more.
RBDR is sponsored this week by RFL Client Consulting, the new service designed to deliver state-of-the-art, unique services such as PR guidance for NP & Service launches, facilitation on your behalf with your procurement department and MR Agency selection. Using experiences and the expertise collected from over 300 client research organizations and thousands of research agency organizations over 24 years, RFL Client Consulting is ready to boost a client or MR agency’s effectiveness and efficiency.
For details on how RFL Client Consulting can help, please click here.
No need to spend time “searching” for today’s RBDR video. Subscribe to receive a FREE, personal email as soon as the new RBDR is uploaded. Click here.
KK makes a lot of good points, Bob. The Advisor role was always a higher level, consulting approach and valued sometimes more than technique expertise by clients. Bill F.
Wise perspective from Kathryn. The opportunity for marketing research and insights professionals is to know how to use ALL the tools available to us, and to analyze and integrate findings and insights from ALL sources. Our industry continues to shoot itself in the foot by disparaging “traditional” marketing research. We tell our clients and ourselves that what we have been doing for decades really isn’t any good. I think that is a function of suppliers attempting to distinguish their trademarked shiny new things by disparaging “traditional” marketing research. Sadly, many of the people who put down traditional marketing research are just ignorant about when and how to conduct depth interviews, or focus groups, or when and how to conduct survey research, much less more detailed issues such as sampling and weighting, projective techniques, probing, etc. All of our methods have their purpose and place. The industry would be wise to stop using the term, “traditional marketing research.” Instead, we need to increase our mastery of all tools and techniques, know when and how to use them, and integrate the findings and the insights.
Art Christiani, Founder, The Hendry Partnership: I enjoyed your latest video on digital research and I could not agree more. I also viewed the rebuttal which prompted my response below.
This reminds me of the time when survey research was moving to digital, fielding surveys online, and there was tremendous pushback from traditional researchers.
It clearly depends on the area of research. For example, for analytics, the digital data explosion offers opportunities but it also has created its own very distinct research area, with its own terms and lexicon, and its own measures of effectiveness. This has doubled the research analytics costs for marketing mix analysis since the two areas are so diverse and use different data, approaches and models but seemingly trying to measure the same cross-channel ROI.
Digital has in effect doubled the efforts for marketing effectiveness analysis and marketing mix since the data, models, and analyses are so different, to date.
I propose a solution to integrate the two distinct and different marketing mix and media attribution model for better analyses, more complete, and more accurate with common terms and techniques.
Not only would this force these two distinct silo’s of research and analysis into one unified, consistent approach, it would provide better insights with a cross-media and cross-channel complete view.
Well done, Kathryn. I could not agree more. Keep talking!