We live in a city that’s used to big events, but the first ten days of 2012 will be remembered as some of the busiest days New Orleans has ever seen outside of the Mardi Gras parade season.  In less than two weeks, New Orleans hosted a nationally-televised Saints game, the Sugar Bowl, a Saints playoff game and the BCS National Championship game.  The Crescent City became Football City during that time period, and it could have also been a researcher’s dream city.

Crowd estimates put more than 300,000 people in town for those games (note the Mercedes-Benz Superdome only holds about 73,000 fans), so it’s not hard to imagine that more travelers came down just for the festive atmosphere.  In a compact, walkable city like New Orleans, researchers could have used the opportunity to disperse interviewers into the masses to conduct in-person interviews using a tablet device.  Even though most visitors were football fans, the crowds included members of many desirable demographic groups.  What better time to talk to consumers than when they’re in a festive mood?

Every company that sponsored a team, event, venue or promotion related to the games in New Orleans should have taken the opportunity to talk to fans about their attitudes on brands and sponsorships.  But any sporting event can also be a huge opportunity for brands that don’t have connections to sports.  Even though Allstate sponsored the Sugar Bowl and BCS Championship, don’t you think it would have been a great opportunity for State Farm to conduct research on the insurance needs of college students?  Just because Mercedes-Benz pays to put its name on the Superdome doesn’t mean BMW can’t gather great insights from fans heading to the game.

Sporting events do not have to draw blockbuster crowds to be valuable to researchers.  Fans – especially fans with good tickets to professional sporting events – generally have money.  This demographic includes desirable respondents for research involving a number of different brands, industries and causes.  Unless their team just experienced a terrible loss, sports fans are generally happy people.  Having someone with desirable demographics who has a few minutes to engage in a survey offers a great opportunity for researchers looking to connect with hard-to-reach respondents.

Louis David, Account Executive

Hidden charges, nickel and diming, small print disclaimers…we all hate these!  So why are so many companies still doing them?  Hidden charges are so common that some companies actually have to point out that they are transparent with their fees – Southwest’s no-bag-fee, for example.

Thinking about this further, I can recount three different instances over the past few days where I had paid more than I expected to pay or saved less than was advertised.  While I vow to be more careful going forward, it does shine a light on why trust in a product, service, or company is so hard to earn.

Taking this a step further, imagine the challenge market researchers face in the eyes of consumers?  Abuse of a consumer’s trust can, and has, bled over into their willingness to participate in survey research.  When survey participants have a bad experience, do not qualify for a survey or the incentive is not handled correctly, they stop taking surveys.  They may even tell their friends that participating in research isn’t worth the hassle.  While some may think that there are still plenty of people willing to take surveys, the truth is that finding quality respondents will get tougher over time.

What can be done to improve respondent trust? This issue is always a hot topic in the market research industry and heavily debated.  While there is a long road ahead to accomplish this as an industry, as individual researchers we can do more to address transparency with respondents.

Here are a few best practices used to be more transparent, responsible researchers:

• - Limit Screener Questions – When respondents complete long lists of screener questions only to be told they do not qualify, they feel tricked.  Screener questions should be limited to essential information.
• - Be Clear About How and When Incentives Will Be Distributed – Respondents should be given specific information about their incentive.  How long will it take to receive the incentive?  What type of payment will they receive?  If a sweepstakes is being used as the incentive, what are the rules?
• - Be Honest About The Survey Length – This is a biggie.  Providing the respondent with a range of how long the survey takes to complete is a good way to cover all bases.
• - Share Contact Information – CAN-SPAM Compliance requires this, but it is still surprising how often this ‘best practice” is missed.  Giving the respondent someone to contact about their experience goes a long way in gaining their trust.
• - Have a Privacy Policy – Including a link to a privacy policy everywhere a respondent may reference – the company website, the survey invite, the actual survey – goes a long way in calming respondent’s fear of abuse of their personal information.
• - Adhere to a Code of Ethics – Being associated with industry organizations (like CASRO) and adhering to a Code of Ethics sends a message to respondents, “This Company is willing to make an investment in their industry organizations.  They value their reputation and professional practices.”

Few people would ever say they like a purchasing experience with hidden fees, nickel and diming, and small print disclaimers.  It is easy to see the abuse there.  Why is it so hard, as researchers, to keep from doing the same to survey respondents?

Chanttel Allen, Managing Director

As Americans start making Thanksgiving grocery lists, most of us assume those lists will have nearly identical ingredients for celebrations from Seattle to Key West.  But a recent USA Today article reminds us that even though the image of a roasted turkey surrounded by family-style side dishes may be our stereotypical view of Thanksgiving, it may not be truly representative of what Americans will be eating on November 24^th.

The stuffing versus dressing debate is one that mostly straddles the Mason-Dixon line with northern cooks stuffing birds and southerners baking a cornbread dressing in its own dish.  The article also notes other regional differences like apple cider-brined turkeys in New England and blue-corn bread in the Southwest (pictured on the left).  My father grew up on a farm in South Louisiana and Thanksgiving at my grandparents’ house often didn’t even involve a turkey – a pork roast was often the preferred Cajun meat centerpiece.  Here in New Orleans, oyster dressing is a local favorite and a must-have on many holiday tables.  Also, you’ve got to love the section on what’s popular in California: take-out.

So what does the Thanksgiving dinner table have to do with market research?

It reminds us that no matter how standardized we think certain behaviors or habits may be – there can always be a little personalization based on geography and demographics.  As our nation becomes more diverse than ever, we’re all becoming more comfortable with adapting to new customs and tweaking tradition.  Consumers in one part of the country may be completely unfamiliar with products we assume are household favorites across America.  It’s important to remember to not make those assumptions.  We walk into every business discussion with preconceived notions about consumers.  It’s best to walk into those discussions armed with facts to make better informed decisions.

Louis David, Account Executive

Everyone wants to know their core customer’s thoughts and insights in order to make better business decisions.  In the case of companies that sponsor and have a brand presence at events, insights are far more easily attainable. The Olinger Group recently teamed up with one of the biggest names in electronics to talk to consumers where they were being exposed to the brand’s image and products.  The electronics brand was sponsoring an annual traveling summer concert series, and we tagged along to see how consumers were receiving the brand’s message.

The Olinger Group’s experience with iPad intercept surveys began over a year ago when a major mall owner requested research at more than 100 of their properties across the country.  With that large-scale project, The Olinger Group pioneered the use of iPads for research and was able to develop a seamless process in the field as well as assemble an internal network of interviewers and project managers in our know-and-trust network of professionals.  After using this approach in a retail setting, the intercepts also proved useful on-site at events like the summer concert series.  Major music, entertainment, and business conference events are ideal locations for intercept surveys due to the gathering of specific demographic groups or target customers in one place at one time.  We quickly noticed how more dynamic it is to interview respondents in a fun environment surrounded by your branding and messaging as opposed to someone’s kitchen counter.

In less than ten days, interviewers and project mangers armed with iPads were out obtaining insights on location multiple stops on the concert tour among thousands of attendees within the client’s target market.
In this particular case, this research approach provided the client with insights into the effectiveness and value of their sponsorship, attendees’ perceptions surrounding the brand and certain product offerings, demographic information, and competitive intelligence.  The use of intercepts enabled The Olinger Group to obtain top-of-mind insights by reaching attendees as they partook in a sensory experience and provided high-quality responses due to the swift, real-time iPad technology and interviewer professionalism.  This type of research is highly customizable surveys to obtain insights on just about any topic of interest and could be used as an innovative approach to research in a variety of industries.

This new method brings up great questions for every marketer – where are your customers?  How do you want to talk to them?  What is the best environment for your survey research?

Aja Hite, Account Executive

For most of the last century, certain rules applied to advertising.  If you wanted to sell cleaning products, you targeted women.  Trucks were for men only.  And clowns were obviously the best way to convince kids to crave hamburgers.  So much has changed since the early days of advertising, and maybe our perceptions of who’s buying what should also change.

A recent Associated Press article says that more parents are now leaving their children at home while shopping for back to school supplies.  That means the dinosaurs and cartoons on the crayon box may matter less than the price tag.  The trend clearly traces its roots to two very precious commodities for today’s parents – time and money.  In many households, both parents work.  In many households there’s only one parent.  School supply budgets and time limits can often be better kept if impressionable and impulsive kids are left at home.  Despite the many Americans who will still see back-to-school shopping as an enjoyable ritual, this trend could shift the way some products used by children are marketed.

This brings up a great point about the face of the American consumer – they are always changing.  The demographic profile you’re targeting may be the eventual end user of the product, but there may have been changes in who buys that product and why.

Value: front and center

Remember the big “upgrade” trend of pre-recession marketers?  It’s been replaced by the “I got a great deal” trend.  Brands like Target and Southwest Airlines have always been playful with their value-centric pitches, but now those attributes are front and center in most marketing efforts.  I was on a business trip last week with our CEO who pointed out huge “Free Bags Fly Here” letters with an arrow pointing to the cargo hatch of a Southwest airplane.

The point is, consumers change.  Those changes can be propelled by economic, social and political influences.  The who, where, what, why and when of purchasing decisions can shift in seemingly shorter spans.  Have your consumers changed?  How?  Are you sure?  These are all good questions to think about as we head back to school and back to work.

Louis David, Account Executive

Inc.

New Orleans-based The Olinger Group Ranks No. 2398 on the 2011 Inc. 500|5000 with Three-Year Sales Growth of 100%

NEW YORK and NEW ORLEANS, August 24, 2011 — Inc. magazine today ranked The Olinger Group no. 2398 on its fifth annual Inc. 500|5000, an exclusive ranking of the nation’s fastest-growing private companies. The list represents the most comprehensive look at the most important segment of the economy—America’s independent entrepreneurs. Online retailer ideeli tops this year’s list. The Olinger Group of New Orleans joins Spirit Airlines, television maker Vizio, Honest Tea, Dunkin Donuts and Metrokane, makers of the Rabbit corkscrew, among other prominent brands featured on this year’s list.

“It’s truly a great honor to be listed among such innovative and respected companies,” said CEO Jude Olinger.  “Our growth over the past three years has been outstanding.  We are looking forward to helping more clients answer their pressing business questions through expert market research,” Olinger added.

In a stagnant economic environment, median growth rate of 2011 Inc. 500|5000 companies remains an impressive 94 percent. The companies on this year’s list report having created 350,000 jobs in the past three years, and aggregate revenue among the honorees reached $366 billion, up 14 percent from last year.

Complete results of the Inc. 5000, including company profiles and an interactive database that can be sorted by industry, region, and other criteria, can be found at www.inc.com/5000.

CONTACT: Jude Olinger, CEO and Founder of The Olinger Group, 504-208-4301, jolinger@olingergroup.com

More about The Olinger Group

The Olinger Group is a leading market research firm with extensive experience in the healthcare, retail, travel and hospitality industries.  Founder and CEO Jude Olinger established the firm in 1994 when he recognized an opportunity to provide clients with personalized, one-on-one service along with reliable and accurate data.  The Olinger Group has continued to grow and now counts numerous Fortune 500 firms among its client base.  The firm is a leader in scientific research techniques, project management and technological innovation including conducting mobile intercept interviews with iPads.

The Olinger Group has assembled a team of professionals with diverse backgrounds who share a passion for market research.  From project managers to account executives – the firm fosters an entrepreneurial culture that encourages flexibility, growth and development for all employees.  Jude Olinger is active in the market research industry, serving on the board of the Council of American Survey Research Organization (CASRO).  The Olinger Group is in the process of becoming ISO-20252 certified.

More about Inc. and the Inc. 500|5000

Methodology

The 2011 Inc. 500 is ranked according to percentage revenue growth when comparing 2007 to 2010. To qualify, companies must have been founded and generating revenue by March 31, 2007. Additionally, they had to be U.S.-based, privately held, for profit, and independent—not subsidiaries or divisions of other companies—as of December 31, 2010. (Since then, a number of companies on the list have gone public or been acquired.) The minimum revenue required for 2007 is $100,000; the minimum for 2010 is $2 million. As always, Inc. reserves the right to decline applicants for subjective reasons. Companies on the Inc. 500 are featured in Inc.’s September issue. They represent the top tier of the Inc. 5000, which can be found at www.inc.com/500.

About Inc. Magazine

Founded in 1979 and acquired in 2005 by Mansueto Ventures LLC, Inc. (www.inc.com) is the only major business magazine dedicated exclusively to owners and managers of growing private companies that delivers real solutions for today’s innovative company builders. With a total paid circulation of 710,106, Inc. provides hands-on tools and market-tested strategies for managing people, finances, sales, marketing, and technology. Visit us online at www.inc.com.

The trend of decreasing telephone landlines has begun to affect the market research industry and limit the ways we are able to reach respondents.  With so many options for cellular phones available, it makes sense for people to abandon their landline.   Cell phone plan prices continue to drop – Boost Mobile now even offers to drop subscribers’ rates by $15 per month after a year and a half of on-time payments.   There are also programs available, such as Lifeline and Link Up, which offer government assistance on wireless bills to low income consumers.

Tech News Daily published an article with interesting figures on landline vs. wireless telephone usage.  In a study conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics with 21,000 American families, they found that one out of every four American families does not own a landline phone.  The study also showed that almost 50% of 25 year olds did not live in a house with a landline and that the majority of cell phone users were under 40 yrs. old.  These figures can be disturbing for market research companies who conduct telephone surveys since most of their sample will likely be older people.

What are Market Researchers Saying?

In an article posted on research-live.com titled “Do phone surveys have a future”, the author stated that “from the 1950s to the 1990s randomly composing a phone number and calling it provided a true probability sample of the US population. But, thanks again to those cord cutters, that Golden Age has ended.”  AAPOR (The American Association of Public Opinion Research) published a report addressing decreasing landlines.  They feel that random digit dialing (RDD) phone sampling has been threatened due to non-coverage bias and have been exploring the use of RDD cell phones surveying.

Market researchers everywhere are feeling the effect and here at The Olinger Group, we have recently worked on a project where this trend of declining landlines affected our sample – causing families with children to be greatly underrepresented.  In our case we were able to purchase more sample and specify that we needed families with children and so we were able to remedy any imbalance in the sample.  But what if you don’t have the time or budget to allow for that?  Telephone surveys are one of the most effective ways to reach small populations, so if they disappear it will be a challenge for all market researchers and buyers to adapt.

Stacy Martinez, Project Manager

Andrew Hill’s Financial Times article, “Surfeit of surveys obscures real insight” argues that more traditional online market research methodologies are becoming irrelevant as respondents grow impervious to the survey invitations inundating their inboxes.  While I agree that survey fatigue can seriously affect the accuracy of results (respondents get bored with lengthy or too many surveys and simply fill in answers without thought), I disagree with Hill’s remedy.  Hill suggests a three-fold attack on the survey – 1) throw precision to the wind and forget about substantial sample size, 2) crown qualitative as king, and 3) jump on the social media bandwagon to use those Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn posts to tell all.

To address the absolute necessity of precision in research, I’ll direct you to our Chief Research Scientist Dr. Gleiber’s recent blog post on the subject.

Secondly, Hill’s example of Procter & Gamble’s use of in-depth interviews to supplement surveys is telling.  The advantages of qualitative research lie in digging deeper, expanding the view, and eliciting specific details about a topic.  Quantitative research does lack this in-depth, high touch insight.  Various qualitative methods may compensate for the occasional shortcomings in quantitative research but (just as the P&G example shows) are most useful to supplement rather than supplant.

The Social Media Solution?

Finally, data mining from social media has been lauded for the infinite possibilities it presents for market research as well as almost any other data-driven field.  It will only grow as an important technique for researchers but by no means can serve as the only tool in the methodological toolbox.  Not every one actively participates in social media, and for those who do, surely not every research question can be answered by tweets.  I, for one, have never once posted about how I make my healthcare decisions or provided information to optimize hotel room offerings.  Furthermore, the market research industry realizes that not all reported through social media is accurate, and must determine what are and are not verifiable accounts.

As market researchers, we need to eliminate redundant questions, diminish use of tedious tasks in the surveys (unless appropriately incentivized), and keep overall survey length to a minimum.  At times, this may mean more work on the back end in analysis, but if the result is higher quality responses and increased appeal in survey taking for the general public, that work is essential.

Jorie Kirschbaum, Account Executive

The idea of rising expectations is not new and almost always in play.  We do not generally make our evaluations between real world elements and ideal forms in the Platonic sense.  Rather we make more empirical comparisons.  Even the most objective and concrete forms of measurement are fundamentally comparisons.  When the referents of those comparisons are changing, the nature of the comparison and its manifestation in measurement changes as well.  At some point high scores are not only limited by upper bounds but their meaning begins to change as well.  When the meaning changes the operational value and informational carried change as well.

While the scores are still high, how they relate to the core concepts of interest, sales, retention, etc. change because the relationships based on one range of the scores being related are different from other ranges.  This is exacerbated because the range for satisfaction does not change with the change in theoretical content.  Whereas before comparison was between apples and oranges, now the comparison is between Chihuahuas that look like apples and oranges.

There are other reasons to be concerned about the demand for high or higher satisfaction scores.  As aggregate scores based on a bounded scale get higher they must become more homogeneous.  Think about grade point average.  It takes only one “B” to lower your perfect GPA and no matter how many “A’s” you get after that you can never reach a “4.0″.  This insight points to two limitations of conventional satisfaction measurement and scores.  The higher the score the harder it becomes to move the needle higher in both absolute and relative terms.  While large absolute increases may always be difficult to achieve, it is always easier to achieve larger absolute and relative increases from lower scores than from higher scores.

When you have a “good” high scoring product or service it will be hard to use those scores to keep it good or make it better.  If it is psychologically unlikely that measurement will continue to describe the same thing as scores and true satisfaction get higher and higher, it is also true that the measurement itself will become more volatile.  The best known example of this is “regression to the mean”.  It is a mathematical necessity that when two variables, like the orientation of satisfaction and the measurement of satisfaction, are less than perfectly correlated, which they always will be in the real world (measurement error of all kinds is always present), cases that are at one extreme on one of the variables will, on the average, be less extreme on the other.  This means that there is a perhaps unknown, but real, error intrinsic in the measurement of satisfaction and as satisfaction scores get higher they become more volatile downward.  Together these two effects make such scores less operationally useful.  You want high scores, work hard to get them but recognize that you cannot maintain them, there meaning will inevitably be changing making them un-comparable, and the higher they are the less usable operational information they can provide.

The homogeneity of higher scores intrinsically and artificially limits variance.  This in turn truncates maximum observable relationships.  When there is little or no variance there is less or nothing to compare and little to be learned.  Measurement that limits variance misses the point of measuring.  We can measure age as old or young OR years since birth.  It should be obvious which measurement strategy captures the most information and is likely to have the greatest operational value.  Even if the two distributions bi-modal and continuous seem to be perfectly correlated, they are not.  The latter carries for more information than the former.  Do a quick and dirty spreadsheet exercise correlating older (6-10)/younger(1-5) with age, use ten records ages 1-10 and the r=.87 not one.

Higher scores can be difficult to maintain

Contractual “obligations” for high aggregate satisfaction scores can be obtained, but the higher the aggregate score required the more difficult it will be to obtain as a mathematical necessity.  Also, the less operationally useful the scores will be to either party to the contract.  They are difficult to maintain and carry less actionable operational information than scores designed to capture satisfaction at middle ranges of a scale.  Tying absolute, or changes, in satisfaction scores to compensation or other incentives may be valid in the short term but is ultimately doomed to failure when the observed scores become higher and more homogeneous.  At some point, they begin failing to differentiate, providing less and less operational usefulness.  Higher scores are more difficult to maintain and most likely to decline making them unsatisfactory for the intended purpose.  Higher scores no longer measure what they did in earlier measurement periods making them more difficult to interpret or understand.

How should orientations like satisfaction be measured and why?  First, opt for a measurement strategy that is continuous and unbounded. This maximizes observed and recorded variance and minimizes artificial truncation of observed empirical relationships necessary for understanding why the scores take the values that they do.   Because it is difficult to provide such a measurement strategy practice use the best approximation of continuous and unbounded that is practical.  Then, do not get hung up on the values.  They are just placeholders for the information you really want.  Focus attention instead on how likely the score is to change and whether what you are doing operationally changes the score.  Use the score to model the psychological state it represents and then use the parameters to guide your business decisions.

Companies need to be cautious of their satisfaction education

When managers and executives focus on higher scores they tend to misbehave in order to obtain them. AT&T provided a crib sheet to customers on how to answer its after service satisfaction survey.  A Pensacola, FL hospital printed an image of a correctly completed (all top boxes) satisfaction survey on its emergency department discharge envelope.  A major financial institution’s CEO emailed its employees instructing them to provide different (read higher) responses to loyalty and satisfaction questions on its annual employee survey.  None of this is new.  For years we have rightly decried grade inflation and teaching the test in schools to no avail.  These practices are no different.  The business school adage needs to be corrected.  You cannot manage what you do not measure validly and measurement validity inevitably suffers when the goal is simply high scores.

TOG has demonstrated that we can change the scale score by changing the response options.  But more on that later.

Dennis Gleiber, Ph.D., Chief Research Scientist