Jamie Thorpe Jamie has spent his working life within the Mystery Shopping and Research industry. With over 15 years experience his expertise has been developed by working in the key operational areas of measurement and performance improvement. His current role at Grass Roots encompasses client/commercial relationships, marketing, key account direction and business development. Read the full biography here.

Fit for Purpose

How customer demand and evolving technology is driving the way we conduct research

11th November, 2011

Consumer trends have regularly influenced the way research providers engage with respondents. Increasing familiarity with technology, and its use in our everyday lives, is currently having a huge impact on the research community, as brand owners make clear their expectations for the latest tablet computer or smart phone app to be used when interacting with their customer base.

On the surface the motivation for this is undoubtedly sound - to demonstrate that the brand is in tune with their customers by embracing the latest technology and engaging with their audience in a way that appeals to them. But surely as researchers, we have a responsibility to ensure the usage of technology is fit for purpose and push back on our clients if it’s not?

Clients are continually, now more than ever, investing in technology, which is clearly a good thing, but both brands and researchers need to be aware that technology is open to abuse and results can be falsified – potentially generating a false economy. Use of technology itself is good but comes with a note of caution that we need to ensure the quality of the data that’s generated, or risk our collective reputations.

To give an example, while out shopping recently, I was asked to provide my feedback regarding my experience on a tablet device. The intention of the brand is admirable but, in my opinion, the deployment fell significantly short. When the methodology was planned the executives obviously thought that the medium would engage respondents and interviewers alike (no more fiddling about with questionnaires). However when I asked if many people were participating in the research, I was told the staff complete the survey several times a day themselves to ensure enough data is being gathered, completely falsifying the results.

I suspect they are under pressure to get a certain number completed during a day and with this technology have found they can ‘cheat’ in ways they cannot with other survey methodologies. Phone and email based surveys require the customer’s personal contact details in order to be completed (and are frequently recorded and/or quality checked by the company conducting the surveys on behalf of the organisation), exit interviews would not be asked of staff in uniform and I doubt very much employees would go to the effort of disguising their handwriting to complete a paper survey away from the workplace and then submitting it. The tablet device, on the other hand, makes it easy and quick to complete the questionnaire and the response is anonymous. I suspect they do it while no-one is watching at quiet times in the stores - perhaps they set it up with a customer hoping they will complete it, but they decline, so they fill it in after they have left the store.

It is laudable that brands are responding to consumer behaviour, by increasingly demanding services that push technological boundaries, but the way forward has to be quality over quantity and gathering meaningful research. This brand may feel that it is saving money but surely the results cannot be relied upon?’

We may be reaching a point of research saturation; customers are so used to being asked for their opinion that they are becoming more expectant that the results of surveys they’ve completed will go into a void. We are continually seeing examples of where this actually happens. One of my colleagues took his new high end 4x4 to the local dealership and was disappointed to get poor service and a dirty Mondeo as a loan car. He received not one, but two surveys asking for his feedback within three weeks of his visit (one from the Dealer group and one from the brand!). He fed back his dissatisfaction, heard nothing and to add insult to injury received a sales call from the dealership! Where is the customer centric approach and value in this process?

Technology has increased expectations of immediacy from the general public as well as their confidence in expressing opinions and complaints. Interestingly, more and more complaint handling is being conducted and even encouraged online (often the same channel through which brands encourage feedback), perhaps because this puts more distance between the brand and the customer and is less personal. In future this could also be an area that requires measuring to ensure brands provide methods of giving feedback and complaints that the customer wants. As a consequence of this ‘everything now’ attitude, brands want faster turnaround in terms of reporting, red flag outputs and communication with customers. They are acutely aware that a brand’s reputation can soar or sink if consumers decide to use social media to applaud or slate its products or service. Red flag reporting enables any potential issues to be intercepted and contact with the customer to be made directly before the situation gets out of hand – but it has to be effective.

Research providers can maintain a competitive advantage by ensuring the techniques we recommend are fit for purpose. Research techniques should, generally, be appropriate to the interaction, so when measuring the online experience, gather feedback online or by email, or if a customer has ordered by phone, a phone conversation is likely to be the best way to gauge satisfaction. It’s therefore likely when measuring multiple channels that a variety of techniques will be used to harvest the insight required.

A good tip is to always ask the customer which channel they prefer to be contacted by in future, as this is likely to lead to higher engagement, evoke higher response rates and makes them feel valued. The recent Customer Experience Deficit Report ‘Opportunities for Growth in the Retail Industry’ published by Head London in association with Oxford Economics confirmed this by identifying key success factors as: enable customers to choose a purchase path which suits them best, create appropriate links between touchpoints, use mobile websites and mobile apps appropriately and treat customer support as an important part of the customer experience.

Added to this is the ability to gather customer data and distil it into client reports in ways that reflect a multi-channel research approach. And with consumers demanding immediacy, brands expect the same, so in addition to swift turnaround requirements, researchers should consider the ‘mobility’ of those reading the reports and acting on the feedback. Brands may not want their data presented back to them face-to-face; they may favour quick, actionable insights delivered more regularly straight to their smartphone, or straight to a store manager to action. Investment is then required within research’s account management teams to ensure high levels of competency in changing technologies, mining of data and other factors to guarantee optimum service and research expertise.

Research providers must stay abreast of technology developments and equip themselves to be able to respond to clients’ changing needs in a competitive market. At the same time, we must guide brands on what is fit for purpose and that quality, not quantity is best.

Jamie Thorpe

Comments on this article

Want to share your thoughts...?

Want to share your thoughts?

NOTE: Please note that this board is moderated, and comments are published at the discretion of the site owner.