Understanding Your Internal Audience: Research Receptiveness

(part of Chapter 3: Considering Internal Audience)

 

There are multiple facets to consider about an internal audience’s readiness for market research. These items range from an audience’s receptiveness to specific techniques, all the way to presentation of data.

It is important to take note of the your internal audience’s abilities and preferences to make sure they will be able to receive and apply research results successfully. Read on to learn about aspects to consider when assessing your internal audience’s readiness for MR.

 

Objectively assessing your internal audience’s readiness for MR is important for a few reasons, including the following:

• Your internal audience’s sophistication with MR has implications for the type of research you do.



• It has implications for how you will want to deliver the results at the end of a project.



• It will inform your choices about how to prepare your audience for the delivery of final results.

Where do we start? By evaluating our audience on four parameters, shown in Table 3.1.

 

Table 3.1 Measuring Audience Readiness for MR
Item	Key questions
Receptivity	Is your audience open-minded about MR? Do you have a lot of research skeptics?
Data type preferences	In your organization, is there a general preference for "hard numbers" (quantitative research) or for stories (qualitative)? Does one type of information influence key decision-makers more than the other?
Sophistication	Do they know how to read charts and graphs? Do they know what a cross-tab is? Do they understand the limitations of research, or are they likely to have unrealistic expectations?
Attention span	How much of their own time will they give to the project, either during the planning phase (when their input might be needed) or at the conclusion (when they need to receive and read the results)?

If you feel you need more guidance in reflecting on these items, see the self-assessment quiz at the end of this chapter.

 

Research Receptivity

Will your internal audience be receptive to research results? How can you maximize receptivity? Careful thought about this will help you create an RFP and agency selection criteria that ultimately will affect your project’s success. Here are some points to ponder:

• Is your company full of skeptics who will reject any results that conflict with their personal opinions or preconceived beliefs?


• Is your organization full of people who will only accept good news and will shoot the messenger if there’s bad news?


• Do you have people who are going to be cynical about the results no matter what—whether it’s qualitative or quantitative, even if the results are based on large numbers of participants?


• If your research will be among your current customer base, will your salespeople object to “their” customers’ information being shared?

A little bit of cynicism is fine. In fact, it’s healthy. I like it when people ask tough questions because it shows me that they’re paying attention. And let’s be honest: There is some shabby research out there, people should ask questions.

Still, excessive cynicism is counterproductive. To keep it from derailing the research process, it’s a good idea to assess it and determine its root causes. Be sure to understand why they are inclined to be cynics:

• Did a past research project go terribly awry? You need to find out what happened, so that preemptive steps can be taken to avoid a repeat. If relevant, those steps can be stated as project requirements in the RFP.
• For example, did a past project fail because the agency did not keep you informed of deviations from quota requirements? Then the RFP should state clearly that you will require quota updates daily during the data collection process.
• Does your audience have unanswered questions about the agency’s qualifications? If so, it’s usually an easy fix. If you know certain credentials are required to make an agency acceptable, ask for them in the RFP.
• Are only firms with lots of PhDs on staff good enough? Fine. Get them. Do you have colleagues who prefer agencies that have notable experience conducting research in China? Great—ask agencies to give examples of their data collection experience in China.
• Are they skeptical about finding qualified respondents? This is a common, legitimate concern. An agency should be able to give you reasonable and precise information about their sample sources and the techniques used to qualify respondents and data check responses.

In many cases, a little forethought and preparation of a preemptive strike can go a long way toward overcoming cynicism. In contrast, avoiding the issue only leads to heartache.

 

Data Type Preferences

What types of information will your audience find most useful? Easiest to understand? Most suitable for taking action? Market research can deliver information in various forms—and it isn’t always obvious which one is best (see Table 3.2).

 

Table 3.2 Common Data Type Choices
Information Types	Examples
Quantitative: Hard numbers	A survey of 1,000 customers, delivered in tables, cross-tabs, charts, and graphs. The results are statistically testable.
Quantitative: Soft numbers	A survey of 100 customers, perhaps more directional than statistical. In some cases, from known, highly qualified respondents (such as a customer list). These numbers tell a story, but aren't necessarily statistically representative.
Qualitative: Text format	Select quotes from focus groups or research interviews.
Qualitative: Video format	Select video clips from focus groups or research interviews.
Qualitative: Observational	Ethnography (e.g., videotapes of shoppers as they examine a shelf display).

As you look through Table 3.2, ask yourself if your group is more swayed by certain types of information than others. Company cultures vary in terms of the types of information that have real influence.

Is this an audience that’s strongly influenced by hard numbers? Is this an audience that’s more influenced by stories and anecdotes? Do they need to see it to believe it? Do they need sheer volume of data to be convinced of any finding? Are they turned on by elegant analyses? Do they tune-out as soon as they see a bar chart?

 

Preferences for Qualitative

In some companies—even very large ones—qualitative research is more influential than quantitative. Some executive-level decision-makers are far more comfortable with stories and verbatim quotes than with numbers.

That might be surprising. You would expect the management team of, say, a leading consumer goods manufacturer, to embrace hard numbers. But when it comes to making decisions about topics such as product development, marketing strategies, or customer satisfaction tactics, in some cases, stories resonate the most.

Also, in reality, it’s easy to try to discredit quantitative information. Even if you’ve done a survey of 2,000 customers and you found out your customer satisfaction scores aren’t what they could be, there are going to be executives who will find ways to knock holes in that. Even if their criticisms aren’t valid, it can really dilute the impact of the research as it gets rolled out through the organization.

If you know your audience includes likely naysayers who will nitpick your numbers, it can make sense to do a study with qualitative methods. Of course, it is not always an either-or choice: If budget permits, a combination can be ideal.

 

Preferences for Quantitative

In other organizations, the strong preference is for quantitative data—hard numbers, based on large sample sizes. This is especially common in engineering-driven companies and financial institutions—where the management teams often seem more comfortable with numbers than with anecdotes.

In these situations, qualitative research can be the easily dismissed methodology. And I have seen clients who wanted to do quantitative research even when a qualitative methodology would better meet the objectives. After all, qualitative methods also can be refuted. Common challenges from qualitative research cynics include:

• What if you only talked to outliers? This information could be misleading!


• I think the research participants were just being polite to the focus group moderator—I don’t think they gave really candid information.

The bottom line: If there is a conflict between the best methodology for the project’s objectives and the best for internal audience needs, it is necessary to weight your choice heavily toward the audience. The research will be useless if it doesn’t have an impact on actual decision-making.

 

Sophistication

Is your audience comfortable reading data? Would they read a large set of charts and graphs and understand them? Have they seen questionnaires in the past, such that they understand that there is a bit of science and art to the design? Do they embrace elegant data models?

Those of us in research often forget that not everyone is comfortable reading charts and numbers. Even if you label charts carefully (always a good idea in any case), not everyone “gets” them. Some people get tripped up reading the most basic statistics.

If your audience is unsophisticated in terms of data analysis, you will want something in your RFP asking about training options or creative ideas for presenting results to your audience. If you ask your research agency, they should be able to give you some options.

 

Attention Span

How much of your audience’s attention can you realistically get? Even if they are receptive, how much of an effort are they likely to make to digest and apply the research? How much hand-holding will they need? Once a final report is delivered, can you trust that they will take the initiative to read it, come back with questions, and actually apply the results?

One step to take is to set expectations: Let internal clients know early on how much time they will need to invest for the project to be a success. Let them know at what critical junctures their involvement is necessary. Let them know they should reserve time to receive and read the final results.

It would be a lot easier if the success of a market research project was judged at the point of report delivery or final presentation. But the brutal reality is that your audience will judge the project’s success based on the extent to which they use it.

That’s right. A market research project manager can spend three months planning, executing, and delivering a great project. But if the internal audience is unprepared to understand it, too busy to read it, or finds the results too cumbersome to navigate, the project will be perceived as a failure. It’s up to us to make sure the audience is ready, willing, and able.

 

This is an excerpt from the book, "How to Hire & Manage Market Research Agencies," which is available on Amazon. Published by Research Rockstar LLC. Copyright © by Kathryn Korostoff. All rights reserved.