Research 2.0: The Changing Internet Landscape and Implications for Researchers

April 2007

2

Agenda

• Web 2.0: Fact or fiction?

• Impact on the relationship with customers and stakeholders

• Research 2.0

• New methods of engagement, research applications

• Parting thoughts

3

What is Web 2.0?

4

What is Web 2.0? (cont’d)

Common elements of the Web 2.0 concept:

• Interfaces and applications no longer about pages and sites.

• Personalization users can customize their experience.

• Community users interact with one another, sometimes forming social networks.

• Creation the platform facilitates creation, not just communication or participation.

• Collaboration creation is collaborative rather than isolated (and users can share data in different forms).

• Cumulative it’s an ongoing process, where creation can be built upon.

5

What is Web 2.0? (cont’d)

• Web 2.0 is not just about the tools and technologies. It’s about the people and what they are doing with them.

• It represents a shift in behaviour – to some extent what people envisioned for the Web at the very beginning.

− “It's no longer all about idly surfing and passively reading, listening, or watching. It's about doing: sharing, socializing, collaborating, and, most of all, creating.” - Eckart Walther, Yahoo! Inc. Vice-President for Product Management

• It also represents a shift in control.

6

Web 2.0: Fact or Fiction?

Is it just another buzzword? Consider…

• Roughly 25 million people are using YouTube.

• At MySpace.com, 21 million monthly visitors spend up to several hours a day sharing their thoughts, photos, and music with friends on personalized home pages.

• Cyworld claims almost a third of South Korea's 48 million people as members.

• Technorati tracks more than 70 million blogs.

7

Web 2.0: Fact or Fiction?

• Nike placed this video of Ronaldinho on YouTube.

• It costs them nothing to place it, and it’s been viewed more than 12 million times.

8

Web 2.0: Fact or Fiction? (cont’d)

9

The New Relationship with Stakeholders

Traditional Relationship New Relationship

•Top-down:−Organization starts with an objective.

−Plans are put in place.

−Strategies and tactics are developed internally, and then tested with audiences.

−Marketers refine communications, products, services in an attempt to bridge the gap.

−The process terminates when the audiences behave in a manner that is consistent with the objectives.

−Relationship is more like “parent-child”

•Bottom-up or interactive:−Organizations receives input about their programs, services, or about problems/issues encountered by audiences.

−They engage in iterative discussions with audiences to clarify issues raised and ask directed questions.

−Clients/audiences propose changes or unique approaches, rather than simply receiving internally-generated initiatives.

−The dialogue is ongoing, with audiences becoming integral players in the planning process.

−Relationship is more “adult-adult”

10

Example: Communication Environment

Communicator AudienceMessage

Co

de

Deco

de

For message to be received,presumes communicator andaudience connect

Communicator Audience

Old Communication Process

New Communication Process

11

Research 2.0

• So, what does this all mean for research (2.0)?

• It means we have to consider both the behavioural and technical changes that have occurred to:

− Better engage the people we need – respondents, participants.

− Leverage the power of their thinking to generate ideas, identify issues.

− Tap into water-cooler discussions.

− Attain more accurate results.

• It involves…− New methods of engagement (a different mindset in approaching research

participants).

− The application of new technologies within existing methodologies.

− Observing users, listening in on conversations.

• It does not mean that we discard traditional methods.

12

Research 2.0: Implications

Traditional Research Research 2.0

•More control over feedback, dialogue

•Participants as “lab rats”

•Structured feedback methods

•We pick the questions and (sometimes) the answers

•Less control, dialogue shaped to a greater extent by audiences

•Participants as stakeholders

•More observation

•People are enabled to suggest questions and provide true answers

13

Research 2.0: New Methods of Engagement

• Traditional research approaches are framed within the top-down, command and control model.

− We tend to cast people as passive “respondents” with little control over the enquiry process.

• Response rates continue to be a challenge, in part because people are becoming more discerning about lending their time to organizations with which they have little or no prior affinity.

• Need to adapt approaches to the new, collaborative nature of the relationship.

− To address problems of participation, we need to adapt to cultural change.

• There is an opportunity to tap into bottom-up, interactive communications by engaging people in different ways.

14

A Scenario…

1. A group of people are asked to attend a focus group to discuss their attitudes towards a sensitive communications campaign. There are people from a sponsoring government organization viewing the session.

2. The same group of people happen to be at somebody’s house for a social gathering, where they have a “water cooler” type discussion about the issue and the related campaign.

• Which do you think will be the more honest and insightful discussion?

15

New Methods of Engagement : Private Online Communities

• Private online communities differ from online panels in that they are:

− more collaborative (bottom-up rather than top-down);

− less controlled; and

− people develop a stake in the community because they can see how results are being used.

• Benefits include:− higher participation, engagement;

− user-generated ideas; and

− surfacing of unasked questions. P&G’s Vocalpoint engages acommunity of moms in part because they get "a voice that is going to be heard by companies.”

16

New Methods of Engagement : Private Online Communities

• I’m not suggesting that online communities replace traditional methods altogether.

Panels*, surveys good for… Online communities good for…

•Quantifying impact, attitudes, etc.

•Estimating demand

•Applying conjoint and other advanced quantitative methodologies

•Identifying emerging needs

•Surfacing new product or service ideas

•Refining concepts

•Listening for attitudes

•Recognition that panels need to be properly constituted, managed

17

Research 2.0: Using Technology to Improve Methods

• Typically, online surveys have emulated the paper-based version.

− Acknowledge that they have CATI-like capabilities.

• More dynamic applications create a new set of expectations for engaging people in research.

− The Xbox generation who will be participating in our research in the future will expect surveys, etc. that go beyond the typical emulation of the paper-based version.

• There are opportunities to make the experience more engaging and enjoyable.

− Helps address response rate issue.

− In some cases, the technology can improve the quality of data.

18

Using Technology to Improve Methods:Personalized, Dynamic Survey Experience

• Utilizes AJAX (Asyncronous JavaScript and XML).− e.g. Used in Google Maps

• Can improve engagement, quality through such techniques as…

− overlaying of objects on the same page to avoid scrolling, long lists; and

− advancing rows of scaled questions.

• Generate greater insight through new techniques.− Pop-up, follow-on questions within the same screen.

− Enable respondents to access background information to make informed decisions.

− Use drag and drop methods that permit new types of analysis.

19

Using Technology to Improve Methods:Personalized, Dynamic Survey Experience

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 meansstrongly agree, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements

The presenter used effective teaching aids and methods.

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

20

• Online diaries enable participants to record their experience as they move through a process.

− e.g. applying for a passport, taking out a mortgage, etc.

• Simulates the traditional diary methods used in research.− Can be more or less structured in nature, depending on requirements.

• Applications enable participants to:− describe what happens on a daily or weekly basis as they migrate through the process;

− answer pre-posted questions (e.g. result expected, what worked well, what did not work well, suggested improvements) for each interaction;

− engage in dialogue with an observing moderator (e.g. to clarify issues that emerge);

− participate in follow-up interviews or discussions; and

− record their experience online or using a mobile device.

• Compared to traditional methods…− permits moderator intervention during the process; and

− facilitates involvement, better addresses recall bias.

Using Technology to Improve Methods:Online Diaries

21

Research 2.0: Listening in on Conversations

• Blogs, video sharing, and public communities enable us to observe and track water cooler discussions on the Internet.

• It involves less intervention and more observation.− Observation has traditionally been underutilized as a technique

because of the expense.

• It requires a level of comfort with honest feedback, water-cooler conversations.

− A listening culture.

22

Listening in on Conversations:Observation

• "It's fantastic from a consumer research standpoint. You can type in a search for 'shopping' and then see (videos) of people showing their shopping habits. It's almost like a global focus group." - Barry Lowenthal, President, Media Kitchen, discussing the benefits of YouTube in a USA Today article.

• Shopping Habits

23

Listening in on Conversations:Blog Tracking

• Various services have emerged to track trends, “buzz” generated on the “blogsphere”.

• It’s a method to track and listen in on unsolicited opinion.

• Can be used to…− track the “buzz” created by a new product launch or initiative;

− identify the issues that affect sentiment related to your product or initiative; and

− identify key influences.

24

Other Implications for Marketing Research

• The current approach that we use for web metrics needs to be reviewed.

− e.g. If using an AJAX-supported web application, how do we measure usage when they are being served up content within the same page.

25

Some Parting Thoughts

• As an industry, we need to think about the inherent value of what we do…

− Are we in the business of delivering traditional “qualitative” and “quantitative” research?

− Or, are we in the business of delivering marketing insights, utilizing techniques that are best suited to the times?

• We need to recognize that the relationship between organizations and the audiences they serve is changing.

− People expect to influence decisions, be involved.

− Be prepared to give up some control.

• We should appreciate the power and value of collaborative communications.

− “The successful organization is not the one with the most brains, but the most brains acting in concert.” – Peter Drucker

26

Some Parting Thoughts

• Going forward, consider new approaches that enable you to dig deeper, leverage the power of collaboration.

• Be creative – understand the possibilities of Web 2.0 technologies.

• Learn the rules and play within them.

27

Questions?

Doug Church

Partner

Phase 5

(613) 241-7555 ext. 101

dougc@phase-5.com