Editor’s note: Terry Vavra and Doug Pruden are partners at research firm Customer Experience Partners and authors of Insights, a weekly marketing and loyalty e-newsletter. Vavra is based in Allendale, N.J. Pruden is based in Darien, Conn. This is an edited version of a post that originally appeared here under the title, “Should we abandon push MR and adopt pull MR?”
The terms “push” and “pull” have been referenced in marketing discussions and textbooks for some time. Technically the terms mean:
Push marketing: traditional marketing practices in which content is directed toward consumers generally through the mass media (advertising, direct mail and collateral materials are all examples).
Pull marketing: a relatively new perspective in which consumers self-select and seek out information about a product or brand.
The influence of the Internet
Arguably, the Internet was the greatest impetus for the evolution toward pull marketing. But we shouldn’t disregard the fact that the typical consumer has become far more sophisticated than his or her counterpart of 25 years ago. While the Internet is a great facilitator, consumers might have been ready to ‘take over’ the flow of information even without it. Accepting this radical redirection, a recent article in the GreenBook Marketing Research Newsletter proposes that marketing researchers “understand the paradigm shift in consumer behavior that continues to rapidly proliferate: people are increasingly ignoring push marketing and embracinginbound or pullmarketing.”
The inference? Adopt pull marketing research.
Hold on! Are we trying to monitor opinion or please respondents?
We find this conclusion unnerving. It suggest a lack of understanding of the importance of random sampling; randomness being the key to interpreting a survey’s results as representing any population. Instead, it seems pragmatically driven to accept whatever form of information collection is easiest and will be most embraced by respondents. It can’t be denied that:
- fewer and fewer people are willing to participate in spontaneous randomized surveys these days;
- more and more organizations are openly recruiting participation through offered links or and other public placements; and
- online ads or blog postings routinely ask for volunteers for online polls we wonder how many such polls are reported as research results.
Yes, this is the reality. But recognizing the practices exist shouldn’t compel us to modify our research methods. The acceptance of such practices shouldn’t be extended to an endorsement of their correctness!
Theory-based marketing researchers have worked to come to peace with this evolution of practice. However, there is no real accommodation in scientific sampling theory to allow potential participants in a survey to self-select themselves. Doing so transforms a true scientific survey into a mere straw poll among a group who can’t be ascertained to be representative of any body of customers except themselves.
Some constructive suggestions to cope with the evolving customer
An alternative strategy to cope with today’s far lower cooperation rates with true marketing surveys is to substantially change our survey practices, by:
- shortening our information objectives to two or three major learnings, thereby keeping surveys down to three-to-five minutes in length;
- impressing consumers with the responsiveness the research community gives survey results, thereby encouraging future participation;
- creating survey questions and scales that are coherent, easily understood and easily answered;
- thinking carefully before asking a question – is it truly critical or just a nice to know issue (Need we bother respondents to answer or is the information available through observational sources?); and
- rewarding survey participants with something of value – not necessarily a monetary gift but something that will be appreciated. An inexpensive though often overlooked way to reward participants (in certain types of studies) is to offer them a copy of the findings (sanitized, of course).