Editor’s note: Julie Aebersold is marketing and content executive at Keen as Mustard Marketing, London.
Qualitative research is not what it once was. Innovation and technology are allowing qual to compete with the immense data found in quantitative research but with a deeper understanding of consumers. Today, qualitative research is giving brands the ability to truly walk in their customers’ shoes. But it’s not without risks. Researchers must take new and bold approaches to rethink what qual can do. We’re quickly moving into a more contextual and agile era of qualitative research.
The 21st annual ESOMAR Global Qualitative conference held in Porto, Portugal, offered much diversity, representing cultures from around the world. The official theme of the conference was back to the future. The presentations revealed the power behind mixing traditional methodologies with innovation and technology. But what stood out to me most were the risks researchers are taking – facing possible failure and overall uncertainty – to ultimately get closer to their consumers.
Taking risks with technology
If this conference showed me anything, it’s that quallies aren’t scared of taking a little risk if it means finding a new and better way to understand their participants. By taking risks the studies presented at the conference allowed us to peek into the future of qualitative research. Risks can often lead to inevitable failure in the first attempts, so researchers must learn how to deal with failure (as well as potential public humiliation). Researchers are instinctive and intuitive, and we should learn to trust that. As Peter Totman from Jigsaw Research, U.K., pointed out, we won’t be wise with age but we will be wiser if we keep failing and learn to fail better.
Many of the presentations shared studies that tested the newest technologies where researchers weren’t sure of the outcome potentials prior to the study. InSites Consulting and Heineken tested the outcome of harnessing communication tools that consumers already use on a daily basis and discovered that chat discussions using WhatsApp and Messenger were much more effective than forums. They were able to generate insight from better examples provided by participants and much more context was added to the conversation. The apps formed a stronger bond with participants and increased conversation by over 20 percent. But it didn’t end there. The study also tested the use of automated chat bots. These bots proved powerful enough to take on the roles of the interviewer, the ethnographer and the prober. Plus, the bots led to the same conclusions and results as the human moderator while saving 80 percent of the time – allowing Heineken to test all 60 of its ideas. But the most surprising finding was that bots can be trusted! Humans have always been dubious about robots but when the bot is introduced as imperfect and learning, the participants yield empathy toward the bots and want to help them learn.
I also sat in on a presentation where BAMM, a U.K. marketing research firm, used virtual reality to prove the value of taking risks. Facebook and other big brands are currently playing with the idea of VR and it’s safe to say people aren’t going to give up until they’ve figured it out, so it’s clear VR is here to stay. This means the research industry must take similar risks. The fear among researchers with VR (other than failing) is letting go of control and allowing the feeling of immersion to help viewers come to their own conclusions. It is a risk the industry must take. The key to VR is to focus in on the relationships and reactions rather than just the individuals involved. But to truly find the value of VR in research we need to continue exploring its power, which means not letting the barriers of price (there are inexpensive options) and difficulty (you can often just hit record and leave the room) scare us off.
A key learning from all conference presentations I attended is that the best results come when the researcher and the technology work together – bots and humans side-by-side. Automation is starting to power research, even beyond quant and into qual, but we still need to appreciate the value of the human over the machine. A study by research company SKIM compared man to machine and found that bots only provide half the story; it takes human analysis to truly connect the dots.
Empathy
The main role of client-side researchers is to link the business with the consumer by acting as a true voice of the customer. The word empathy was used in almost every presentation across all the different cultures represented at the conference.
One theme was that empathy can come from technology as it assists in putting us in our customers’ shoes. VR was even referred to as an empathy machine, in that it is excellent in making that emotional connection, linking stakeholders and teams with their audiences.
Some of the biggest barriers to empathy that were addressed throughout the day were bias and stereotypes. Unfortunately, bias cannot be treated through education, so we must actively cultivate empathy as a tool to prevent bias, taking conscious measures by putting ourselves in the shoes of others. Cognitive empathy means focusing on the consumer’s perspectives, straying away from simplified thinking and recognizing emotions in others.
Therefore, true empathy is what we need to create great qualitative data – a holistic understanding of people by reaching across cultures and asking better questions. When researchers fully empathize with consumers they inspire great communication, the consumer in turn will fully empathize with the brand. This Amazon ad is a good example of this empathy connection.
Voice of the customer
It was refreshing to see that the underlying desire to speak with the voice of the customer is still the core driver for qualitative researchers, underpinning hot new technology. And by using these new technologies and taking risks, qual is delivering deep insight and growing in value and importance.