Editor's note: Jackie Lorch is vice president, global kowledge managment at research firm SSI.

The statistics in the latest Quirk’s Corporate Researcher Report suggest little movement in marketing research in terms of budgets and team size: 58 percent of participants report their market research budget has remained static within +/- 5 percent since 2015. Just slightly more (60 percent) report that their budget for outsourced research has stayed the same +/- 5 percent. Only 21 percent say they are likely or very likely to hire additional MR employees this year. 1

But this may not mean that companies are experiencing no change. There are some signs in the answers to open-ended questions about pain points which suggest otherwise. Lack of resources is a frequent theme, mentioned in about a quarter of the comments and summed up by this researcher: “Our duties and responsibilities have grown exponentially over the last two-three years and our staff levels have stayed the same.” It appears that real budgets and staff levels are shrinking as corporate researchers struggle to do more with less.

Many researchers noted the lack of understanding of and appreciation for the power of marketing research. It seems they feel if they could just convince decision makers of the business impact of what they do, they might get the resources they need to provide the insights that make a difference.

For years we have talked about MR not getting enough respect or not having a “seat at the table.” Comments in this survey include: “I have people trying to make decisions about MR but they don’t fully understand our function ... they don’t understand how MR could really benefit them’’ or “(it is) challenging to ensure my research team gets the limelight and recognition due them.”

Two-thirds of participants say they have a “good” or “very good” level of influence within their company and three-quarters feel they have a good ability to uncover business problems using research. But this positive picture doesn’t seem to translate to additional resources for the research function. 2

Could we have an opportunity right in front of us to not just influence senior leaders but make them enthusiastic believers in investment in the research function, showing the relevant insights MR can provide and demonstrating this in a really compelling way?

Could that opportunity be mobile in-the-moment research?

Quite shocking

Data from the Quirk’s survey related to mobile research is quite shocking: Two-thirds of participants report they haven’t done ANY mobile ethnography; two-thirds have not conducted mobile qualitative research and almost half have no mobile-specific surveys in the past two years. Only 5 percent say they are doing a lot more mobile-specific surveys than two years ago and less than 2 percent say they are doing a lot more mobile qualitative or mobile ethnography. Just over half think mobile-specific surveys are effective in providing insights and less than 40 percent think this is true of mobile ethnography and mobile qualitative research. 3 4

Further, researchers are less enthusiastic about mobile-specific research this year than they were last year: In 2015, 65 percent deemed mobile-specific surveys as effective in providing actionable insights; this year only 53 percent say that. This for a methodology and technology that others believed would set the research world on fire for its immediacy, its efficiency, its ability to provide previously impossible insights – and its ability to help tell the story of those insights in a compelling way.

Why has interest in mobile been so tepid? It’s difficult to believe that mobile research will not be the core of research over the next decade. Is the current state a failure on the part of companies providing mobile research services who have talked too much in generalities instead of sharing real, powerful examples of not only what mobile could do but what it has actually done? When asked what research topics demand more discussion, only 4 percent cited mobile, and one researcher commented: “I’m tired of vendors touting new and unproven research tools or methodologies. Just because something is new and cool doesn’t make it helpful with decision-making … I’m open to new things if they can be proven to be sound and valuable.”

What do we need then to prove the value of mobile research? We need to demonstrate specifically how mobile research is uniquely suited to answer questions such as:

  • How appealing is my brand at the shelf to potential customers?
  • How does my product stand out relative to the competition?
  • How do customers rate my product after using or trying it relative to brand expectations and the competitive set?

Mobile works for virtual store shelf research, competitive benchmarking, IHUTs and ethnographic research because mobile adds the capacity to engage the consumer in context at the moment of truth. This moment is so valuable for companies: when the consumer runs across the product in the store, brand loyalty is established. Mobile allows us to see consumers using the product in context – in the office, on the bus, while out and about as well as at home so we get to uncover natural consumption behavior. And it allows us to do this at scale, thus combining quantitative and qualitative research.

Here are two examples:

  • We asked people to prepare a taco meal at home, share the recipes and show us the finished meal. This resulted in the rich data we would expect from an ethnographic study – but at scale – allowing the brand to see consumers in different regions, across different demographics and lifestyles.
  • Panelists purchased shampoo at the store, used it as they normally would and reported their experiences. Just one insight for the brand was that the cap might need a redesign because it was collecting too much shampoo residue – something unlikely to have come to light in a traditional questionnaire.

Shining a light on the in-store experience is a unique contribution mobile research can make. Shoppers are not distracted by a live interviewer and thus are more likely to behave naturally. We can see from the photos and videos they upload what the shelf looks like and better understand:

  • Is the brand at eye level?
  • Is there a promotion?
  • Does the packaging display clearly compared to the competition?
  • Which are the adjacent brands?
  • What is the total competitive set?
  • Which products are out of stock?

All these elements vary by store. Again, the rich data combined with the capacity to collect it at scale is what makes mobile deliver. We can, for example, ask shoppers to rank their first three choices in the category from those available at that particular store – key data that is difficult to achieve by traditional means. Shoppers can upload their receipts, so we understand the product in context of the total basket and know any discounts which might motivate purchase – at the individual store level. Mobile gives voice to a national audience, so qualitative-level insights can be understood not just based on a couple of markets but across a country or multiple countries.

If these results show us the need to share more specifics on mobile’s potential, what mechanisms will work best to get the message across? When asked how they stay up to date on research methodologies and techniques, 86 percent of researchers named Webinars and 68 percent in-person events. At the other end of the scale, only 11 percent said they use Twitter to stay up to date. 5

Be the key?

Will mobile be the key to research gaining the respect among the C-suite we believe it deserves? Perhaps next year’s results will tell a different tale.