Immediacy without intimacy

Editor's note: Zach Mullen is a senior project manager with the qualitative research department at Cincinnati-based research firm Burke, Inc. 

In the past month, how often have you been asked to give your opinion on something solely for the sake of discussion? Team Coke or Team Pepsi? Do you prefer Domino’s or Pizza Hut? Are you a PC or a Mac person? From sports to politics to The Bachelor, it can sometimes feel like we’re in a cultural cycle that embraces debate solely for debate’s sake. We don’t care who wins; we just want to talk about it. 

As marketing research professionals, it’s in our nature (and our job descriptions) to formulate conclusions. We look at the facts, weigh our options and take a stance. And when it comes to business recommendations, we’re no stranger to sharing our opinions. 

Take the notion of in-person research as an example.

In just the last few years, there’s been more of a push/pull on the pros and cons of this methodology than just about anything else within marketing research. One moment, it’s an outdated approach easily replaced with digital alternatives. The next, in-person is seen as the great humanizer, so ripe with empathy that no digital platform can replicate it.

In any normal time, the debate over in-person would rage on. But with COVID-19, the battle is changing completely.

As a member of the qualitative team at Burke, Inc., I have my own opinions on in-person. My team has theirs and I’m sure you have yours. But regardless, one thing is abundantly clear: In-person research is absolutely relevant in the market today.

Around the globe, we continue to see high value in meeting respondents live and face-to-face. Researchers across industries consistently choose to observe consumers in-person, analyzing tone and expression in a way that a text response or transcript just can’t convey (yet). And, in the case of taste tests or touching/feeling physical stimuli, the needs of the research literally dictate the necessity of being in a room together.

But what happens when the option for in-person research suddenly goes away? Run qualitative research long enough and you will inevitably be faced with situations where pivoting away from in-person is necessary. From our team’s experiences, the cause of abandoning the idea of in-person usually falls under one of three scenarios: 

Timing. The timing of in-person can sometimes cause problems. Unlike online or over-the-phone methodologies, it’s pretty implausible for a respondent to complete a screener, drop the rest of their day and drive themselves downtown to participate in a two-hour, in-person focus group. Logistically, in-person works best when there’s a little bit of a runway to work with, timewise. Unfortunately, fast turnarounds and deadlines are more common than not, so it’s not always realistic for in-person to align with a quick-turn qualitative read.

Specific needs. At times, clients need a type of feedback from research that simply cannot be replicated by in-person. Sometimes this means “meeting respondents where they are” via passive data, online channels or something more appropriate for a particular demographic. 

Recruitment plus demos. At the end of the day, in-person research does not always fit the intended target audience. For harder-to-reach respondents like builders, physicians and B2B professionals, it is rarely feasible for them to come into a facility for research. As such, it is critical to be aware of what alternative options exist when in-person just isn’t in the cards for a tougher-to-get audience. 

And then there’s COVID-19. As alluded to earlier, the coronavirus pandemic has been the most glaring reason why in-person work has been cancelled or repurposed in the past few months.

At the time this article is being written, COVID-19 is changing the research landscape rapidly. We don’t know what the next week, month or year might look like but the virus has already begun to make massive inroads on the global economy. And while the effect of COVID-19 on the market research industry is still unknown, it does seem to have totally sidelined the possibility of in-person research in its wake.

Working at a custom research firm, it’s my job to assess the full landscape of methodologies and advise clients on what will best answer their business questions. Sometimes this means doing in-person research. Sometimes it doesn’t. When priorities change or extenuating circumstances like COVID-19 rapidly evolve, our qualitative team needs to be aware of what options best suit the needs of our client.

But how do you decide? At Burke, we don’t tie ourselves to one particular proprietary platform or in-house service. Instead, we constantly evaluate the marketplace’s offerings so we’re able to curate and recommend specific platforms, technologies or services accordingly. It’s critical for us to be fully aware of the adaptable and agile alternatives to in-person research. 

So, is it possible to still make an in-the-moment connection without being physically in-person? We say yes. There is significant value in utilizing additional methodologies. In many instances, alternatives to live research are great at replicating – and in some cases even enhancing – the in-person experience. By exploring a new approach to the same business questions, customers can still engage with their favorite brands but in a more convenient offering tailored to fit their busy lifestyles.

Here are some of our top picks for in-moment alternatives to in-person research. 

Digital ethnographies

No in-homes? No problem. Digital ethnographies can serve as a viable replacement for immersions when an in-home visit or shop-along just isn’t an option. Digital ethnos offer the same face-to-face interaction that a regular ethnography does but, via technology, still allow the researcher to get a tour of the pantry, medicine cabinet or thoughts while shopping in-store. Typical ethnos are limited to a select handful of observers but when digital, more of the research team can watch, observe and discuss via a virtual backroom. Finally, in a rapidly-changing time, it can also give you a peek into what social distancing looks like for consumers. 

Watch-outs: Even though there’s real-time back and forth between moderator and respondent, digital ethnos can, at times, be at the mercy of what the respondents choose to show you. This can sometimes limit the opportunities for natural, observational exploration. 

What you can do: Challenge your moderator to come up with creative probes to get consumers to share beyond what they have planned to show you.

Online bulletin boards (OLBBs)

Versatile and convenient, online bulletin boards have the flexibility to be up and running quickly. By their very nature, they allow for thought-out responses to the questions you have right now, in the moment. OLBBs can act as either a private diary or a public conversation and, given their informal and conversational tone, allow for frequent and seamless topic transitions as information needs change. Online boards also allow respondents to easily upload photos and videos to help illuminate responses, express emotion and provide rich context to open-ends.

Watch-outs: Multi-day OLBBs often result in a lot of content, so go in with an analytical plan for listening and synthesizing the discussion. 

What you can do: Get your whole team involved with specific listening posts and debrief meetings to learn as you go.

In-depth interviews via telephone (TDIs) or webcam (IDIs)

Allowing for the same level of detailed conversation between moderator and respondent, in-depth interviews via telephone or webcam are an absolute go-to for busy and hard-to-reach audiences. TDIs and web IDIs unlock the same personal connection that an in-person conversation would have and result in a meaningful one-on-one conversation. As an added bonus, stimuli can still be presented to respondents through a simple screen-share from the moderator – just like in-person. And with the comfort of their own personal surroundings, respondents can often dive deeper into their behaviors and feelings.

Watch-outs: Sometimes, respondents can feel a little too comfortable in their surroundings. We’ve seen respondents take calls from their dining rooms and offices but also in their car (while driving) and even from their bathrooms. 

What you can do: Prep your team for how your moderator might handle these unique situations.

Web-based focus groups

Web-based video focus groups take everything that’s great about a traditional focus group and move it online. Respondents (and researchers) still get to experience a group dynamic, rich with layered builds and diverse opinions, but all parties are able to contribute from the comfort of their own homes. While research is live, teams have the ability to stream the groups in real-time and converse in a digital backroom – opening the door for in-the-moment probing or shift(s) in direction.

Watch-outs: The logistics of digital video groups can be a little harder to manage than the natural dynamic offered by in-person groups. To account for this, we recommend reducing the size of each group.

What you can do: Set up time for dedicated technology checks a day before the groups go live so that respondents will be in the research itself, not troubleshooting. Ensuring a digital sense of comfort ahead of time will make your participants feel more at home in the groups.

Viable replacement 

It’s easy to think of replacing in-person research with just one of the above alternatives. Typically, the gut reaction is to follow the path of least resistance and just swap out one for one – an in-person focus group for an online focus group, an in-home visit for a digital ethnography, and so on. While there are minor concessions to be aware of here and there, for the most part, each of these methodologies can act as a viable replacement, answering the same business questions with minimal disruption to the overall objectives.

However, before you jump to the one-for-one replacement model, consider the overall versatility. In our experience, these methodologies become exponentially more valuable when layered on top of one another.

Recently, one of our clients in the financial services industry came to us with a series of questions aimed at understanding a few of their specific segments. After internal conversation and collaboration with our client, we settled on a multi-month, multimode qualitative approach that did not utilize any in-person methodologies.

Here’s a brief overview of that project to demonstrate how qualitative research can be just as valuable, when in-person is out of the equation:

Research objective. In order to help drive consideration of the client brand among pre-identified target segments, we sought to understand key financial needs and the accompanying decisions. Specific goals included identifying needs states, brands/products considered, consideration drivers, how solutions are selected and what success looks like. To build an understanding that went beyond top-of-mind needs, we recommended a longitudinal study spanning approximately two months. 

Methodology. An initial, three-day qualitative discussion (online bulletin board) built an understanding of each participant’s unique financial mind-set – their background, goals and aspirations, current financial situation and recent financial decisions/plans. 

Then, respondents tracked all financial activities for six weeks in a personal diary. During the six-week diary, we conducted two separate rounds of one-on-one in-depth interviews via webcam to dig into the emotional drivers behind the financial activities logged.

Near the end of the six-week diary, the research team used all data gathered to date and developed initial hypotheses during a workshop and brainstorming session.

As a final stage, ethnographic qualitative interviews were conducted with select respondents to further explore and refine the hypotheses developed in the consideration map planning phase.

Results plus conclusions. The initial three-day qualitative discussion (OLBB) provided a solid foundation to ease respondents into the project and for the research team to build a meaningful narrative around who they are and what’s important to them. Then, the six-week diary and accompanying webcam interviews identified a range of specific nuances and shared behavior when it came to understanding triggers, information sources and consideration drivers.

Finally, to contextualize all our findings, the ethnographies enabled a holistic understanding of the respondents as individuals, the impact of family dynamics and what role cultural factors may have played on their decision-making. 

By employing multiple approaches of qualitative, we understood these consumer segments on a much deeper and more cohesive level. In the end, the client was able to offer customized financial services for these particular segments and, ultimately, help them meet their financial goals in new and unique ways.

Uncover the underlying ‘why’

In the past, being face-to-face with respondents has been a surefire way to understand deep-rooted emotions and help uncover the underlying “why” behind human behavior. But sometimes, that changes. 

Familiarizing your team with a suite of alternatives to in-person research is a twofold guarantee: Your team will be well-prepared for any disruptions should face-to-face data collection no longer be an option and your collective capacity for addressing any research objective will be significantly expanded.

While methodologies may sometimes shift, the need to understand consumers on a deeper level does not. Be ready.