Welcome visitor you can log in or create an account

800.275.2827

Consumer Insights. Market Innovation.

blog-page

TRC-is-GRIT-TOP-50-market-research

For the third time, we've been recognized by GRIT as one of the 50 most innovative market research firms in the world. I'm humbled by the endorsement that our clients and peers have given us. It is especially gratifying since we are smaller than most of these firms and don't have the budget that they do for promoting themselves. It got me to thinking about what it is about TRC that overcomes these disadvantages.

Obviously, I could point to innovations we've developed like Bracket™ (a better way of ranking lists of items), Smart Incentives™ (using gamification to drive respondent engagement), advances in conjoint (too long to list here) and our agile suite (rigorous quantitative economical and fast solutions). I know the amount of time we put into developing these and the value they have delivered, but what I hear from clients is that this is only part of what makes TRC special.

Clients consistently tell us that they appreciate working with senior researchers who seek to find the solutions not to a research problem, but to a business problem. When their problem demands a solution such as the ones above, they value it, but they know that our goal is not to dazzle them with the latest tools we have come up with, but rather to do so by getting them the answers they need.

For example, in the last year we have had two clients in very different industries (CPG, Healthcare) come to us with very different problems (sorry I can't share that). To solve both of them we used an old technique (Multi-Dimensional Scaling or MDS). This tool was not designed to solve the problems they had, but by breaking the problem down it was clear to us that it was the right tool to do so. In both cases this solved their business challenge and in one it allowed us to do so at a fraction of the anticipated budget.

...

customer-lifetime-value-pricing-research

I was reading Russell Perkins blog (Russell and his firm Infocommerce group help clients develop product strategy and new product development) about the use of Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) in Relationship Scoring. He takes note of a new trend to apply CLV across all customer touchpoints.


As researchers the concept of CLV is something we are quite familiar with. It seeks to take into account everything known about a customer (these might include factors ranging from past purchase and payment behavior to things like credit score, income or level of education) in order to determine the value that customer is likely to bring over their lifetime.


Relationship scoring then uses this to determine how the customer should be treated. High value customers are given opportunities from better customer service to special offers. Is this idea really all that new?  


In many respects it is not. Long before advanced algorithms firms recognized that some customers were more valuable than others. For example a good butcher knew how important each customer was and provided perks to them (like setting aside the best cuts of meat).

...
hp-trivia-pricing-research-monetizing
In my previous blog about HQ Trivia I pondered how the creators of HQ were planning to make money.  Right now there is no advertising; venture capital funds the app and the jackpots. Apart from occasional sponsorships, there appears to be no immediate source of additional funding.
 
HQ could do many different things to achieve financial success – content sponsorships, jackpot sponsorships, advertising, product placement, buying ‘lives’ by watching a 15-second spot  – even sponsor logos on host apparel. In fact, there are probably different ways to monetize HQ Trivia that we haven’t even thought of yet – making this a perfect research case for TRC’s Idea Mill™.
 
Idea Mill™ is our method that employs Smart Incentives™ – harnessing the principles of crowd-sourcing to ask respondents for their best idea, and the ideas are then voted on by other respondents within the same research survey. The respondents with the best ideas as judged by their peers are rewarded with prizes. This is a great technique to use when you’re in the idea generation phase of product development.  
 
Once we get a list of potential ways to monetize HQ, we could then winnow the list to the ones that would be feasible to implement, and narrow the list using a prioritization-based research method such as Idea Magnet™. Results can be generated quickly.  
 
Before implementing the winning ideas, we could further explore options by building various scenarios of the sponsored game, and asking HQers to weigh in on which one would be most acceptable to them. Through a choice-based research tool such as discrete choice conjoint, we could vary HQ’s potential features, such as:
 
      • •  Number of ads or sponsorships per game
      • •  Where the ads appear (between rounds, upon game entry) 
      • •  Prize pool
      • •  Having sponsor-related questions
      • •  Getting bonus ‘lives’ for watching sponsor videos
 
All of these techniques employ strategies we use in pricing and product development research to include the consumer in the decision-making process. HQ’s creators are good at asking questions – I hope they do the same in further developing their product.
 
Hits: 2563 0 Comments

GRIT-TOP-50-report

I appreciate that we are once again in the GRIT 50 Most Innovative Research Agencies. Innovation has always been important to me and so I am quite gratified when I see our efforts being recognized. What I don't know is how people are defining innovation.

I think as an industry we sometimes label things as innovative that are not while failing to recognize some things that are genuinely innovative. In my view, innovation requires that we provide something of value that wasn't available before. Anything short of that may be 'interesting' but not 'innovative'.

I would put things like neuroscience or most AI into the "interesting" category. There is a lot of potential but so far little so show in terms of tangible benefits. Over the years at TRC we've had many ideas that showed promise, but ultimately didn't prove out (my favorite being "Conjoint Poker"). Ultimately it is the nature of innovation that some things will never leave the drawing board or 'laboratory', but without them there would be no innovation.

On the other side, I think ideas that save time and money are often not viewed as innovative unless they involve something totally new. I disagree. If I can figure out a way to do the same process faster and/or cheaper then I'm innovating. It may not look flashy, but if it allows clients to do something they couldn't otherwise do it is innovation.

...
Tagged in: Pricing Research
conjoint-modern-market-research-In my last blog I referenced an article about design elements that no longer serve a purpose and I argued that techniques like Max-Diff and conjoint can help determine whether these elements are really necessary or not. Today I’d like to ask the question “What do we as researchers use that are still useless?”
 
For many years the answer would have been telephone interviewing. We continued to use telephone interviewing long after it became clear that web was a better answer. The common defense was “it is not representative”, which was true, but telephone data collection was no longer representative either. I’m not saying that we should abandon telephone interviewing…there are certainly times when it is a better option (for example, when talking to your clients customers and you don’t have email addresses). I’m just saying that the notion that we need to have a phone sample to make it representative is unfounded.
 
I think though we need to go further. We still routinely use cross tabs to ferret out interesting information. The fact that these interesting tidbits might be nothing more than noise doesn’t stop us from doing so. Further, the many “significant differences” we uncover are often not significant at all…they are statistically discernable, but not significant from a business decision making standpoint. Still the automatic sig testing makes us pause to think about them.
 
Wouldn’t it be better to dig into the data and see what it tells us about our starting hypothesis? Good design means we thought about the hypothesis and the direction we needed during the questionnaire development process so we know what questions to start with and then we can follow the data wherever it leads. While in the past this was impractical, we not live in a world where analysis packages are easy to use. So why are we wasting time looking through decks of tables?
 
There are of course times when having a deck of tables could be a time saver, but like telephone interviewing, I would argue we should limit their use to those times and not simply produce tables because “that’s the way we have always done it”.  
Hits: 3707 0 Comments

Want to know more?

Give us a few details so we can discuss possible solutions.

Please provide your Name.
Please provide a valid Email.
Please provide your Phone.
Please provide your Comments.
Enter code below : Enter code below :
Please Enter Correct Captcha code
Our Phone Number is 1-800-275-2827
 Find TRC on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Find TRC on LinkedIn

Our Clients