Editor’s note: Nick Calo is president of Calo Research Services, Cincinnati .

“We recommend further quantitative research to test the hypotheses that are generated by these findings.” Recognize that sentence? If you’re a qualitative researcher, that sentence, or some variation of it, is probably stored on your word processor and you automatically drop it into every report that you issue. If you’re a buyer of qualitative research, you’ve probably read it more times than you care to remember.

The sampling limitations of qualitative research and the use of interviewing methods that defy replication have caused most qualitative researchers to include some form of the “don’t use this without further testing” disclaimer in their reports. This cautionary statement suggests an expectation that clients will follow-up qualitative research with Phase 2: a larger-sample, more rigorously conducted, quantitative study. In an ideal world, with companies having expansive budgets for marketing research and the time to conduct multi-phased projects, that expectation might be justified. But economic and corporate climate changes are threatening Phase 2, requiring researchers to take action before the quantitative follow-up becomes extinct.

Threats to the quantitative follow-up

• Compressed timelines.

Product development timelines are being increasingly compressed. With a goal of being the first to market with a new product or an enhancement to an existing product, marketers are forced to react very quickly to product development information gathered through qualitative research. Particularly in the technology sector, where windows for success are open very briefly, the time to follow up qualitative research with a quantitative study often does not exist. Product developers must rush to market with the findings from qualitative research, no matter how untested those findings might be, or competitors will beat them to the market. Many technology marketers operate with an attitude of, “Let’s get this product on the street tomorrow. We’ll fine-tune it in Release 2.0.” Immediately using the results of a qualitative study is consistent with that thinking; waiting for the quantitative follow-up is not.

• Demands on the research budget.

Marketing research directors are under pressure to reduce spending or, at the very least, to do more without increasing spending. Forced with a decision to spend limited research dollars on a multi-phase project for one internal client or on several single-phase projects for multiple clients, the prudent strategy for the research director hoping to satisfy as many internal clients as possible is likely to be the latter approach. Thus, the quantitative follow-up is threatened in favor of research for another internal client.

• Contracting populations.

Some markets are contracting so rapidly that there are simply no respondents to include in a quantitative follow-up. Fifteen years ago, a marketer of branch automation technology for the banking industry might have targeted the top 200 banks in the U.S.  to assess market acceptance of a new product idea. That strategy would allow it to follow up a small-sample, qualitative project with a larger-sample, quantitative study of the target audience. With the contraction of the banking industry, today that same marketer might feel that success or failure of the new product introduction will be determined by the top 50 banks, or even fewer. So, after conducting a series of focus groups or depth interviews with the key targets in the banking industry, with whom would that quantitative research be conducted? In banking and other categories of business-to-business marketing, there is simply no one available to participate in a quantitative follow-up after the qualitative research has been conducted.

• Decision makers are questioning the value of greater precision.

A well-conducted quantitative follow-up will add precision to qualitative research findings. A series of focus groups can draw only a conclusion such as, “Most of the customers liked the new concept.” “Most” can mean anywhere from 51 percent to 99 percent. A quantitative follow-up will add precision, allowing the researcher to define “most” with a single number and some error range around that number.

Increasingly, we have heard clients question the value of this greater precision. After the qualitative phase, marketing decision-makers are saying, “I know enough now to make my decision. I can’t see how a more precise answer would affect it.”

And, in many cases, it is difficult to argue with that logic. For example, if a client conducts qualitative research as a disaster check and Phase 1 confirms the client’s worst fears, it would be difficult to justify a quantitative follow-up to determine the size of the looming disaster. As an example, a consumer products marketer tested a television ad through qualitative methods because a senior executive of the company feared that the ad would be threatening to women. His hunch was accurate. Small groups of women, independently recording their thoughts as the ad ran, were appalled by the ad and were shocked that the company would have considered running it. Someone present at the results presentation said, “But that work was qualitative. Shouldn’t we test it with a bigger sample?” The senior executive responded, “Not with my money we won’t.” He had learned enough from the qualitative research to make his decision. The reaction he had feared was dramatically witnessed. He had no interest in spending more money to determine the percentage of women who would be appalled by the ad.

Strategies to save Phase 2

• Demonstrate the contribution that each phase makes to the learning process.

The client that pays for a second phase of research and learns what she already knew from Phase 1 is certain to feel cheated. It is incumbent upon the research supplier and the internal marketing research team to demonstrate that different learning emerges from each phase of the project.

An example may help to illustrate this point. A two-phased project was conducted for a technology marketer exploring a new product introduction. Six Phase 1 focus groups were followed by 500 Phase 2 telephone interviews. In presenting the project’s results, it was emphasized that the Phase 1 findings indicated why people held certain attitudes, but that the groups were unable to determine how many people held a given attitude or how attitudes varied by market segment. The Phase 2 findings answered those questions, but did little to build an understanding of the rationale for the respondents’ views. The client realized that both phases of the project were necessary, because only when combining the results of both phases did she obtain a complete picture of the new product’s opportunity for success and the marketing challenges she would face.

• Be willing to scale-down the scope of Phase 1.

Most marketing researchers like to conduct large projects. After all, it’s a business not a hobby. But those 12-group Phase 1 projects invite clients to say, “Do I still need to do more research after all those groups?” The answer may well be yes, because no matter how many Phase 1 groups are done, they are unlikely to provide answers to the client’s critical quantitative questions. So, the researcher intent on delivering a more complete answer to the client’s marketing needs may have to encourage the client to scale back on Phase 1 in hopes of keeping Phase 2 alive. That’s a tough call for those of us on the supplier side - it’s akin to a waiter recommending that you cut back on appetizers to leave room for the main course. But, it should be done on those occasions when it is apparent that an expansive Phase 1 may threaten the execution of Phase 2.

• Convey the value of “numbers” in building a case to senior management.

In this era of the electronic transmission of data, a VP of marketing at a company that we serve asks us to bind our reports. The more tables, the bigger the binder, the better. Reason: when he meets with his management to get funding to move forward with new product development, he drops the binder on the table in front of senior management. He refers to the resulting noise as the “plop value” of quantitative research, claiming that it conveys a “we did our homework” message that he can’t get from qualitative research.

In a less colorful manner, another client says, “Our senior management will never believe the results of qualitative research. If we tell them that the Phase 1 results were supported by a Phase 2 quantitative follow-up, they are ready to listen.”

Whether the action is dramatically crashing a binder on the conference room table or relying on the persuasiveness of a representative sample, the message is the same: the quantitative follow-up provides a level of credibility to senior management that qualitative research often lacks. For the client who must make a case to senior management to move his or her ideas forward in the organization, that factor alone may be the key to saving Phase 2.

There may be times that nothing can be done to preserve the quantitative follow-up. Organizational issues or constricting markets might demand that a study begins and ends with qualitative research. But, for those cases in which a quantitative follow-up is possible, the strategies noted in this article - demonstrating the unique learning from each phase, scaling back the scope of Phase 1, and emphasizing the persuasive value of numbers - may be effective in keeping Phase 2 alive.