the magazine of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association

MARCH 2015

MY EX-SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMING IN THE BIG BLUE ABYSS – CO-CREATION IN QUANTITATIVE CONTEXTS

FIVE WAYS YOU CAN MORE EFFECTIVELY SHAPE STRATEGY

THE AVERAGE CONSUMER IS ALIVE AND STATISTICAL

MOBILEIN 2015 & MOBILE MR

JOIN US AND HEAR FROM OVER 20 QUALITATIVE EXPERTS!

MRIA • QRC • QRCA-Canada are proud to present a Unique Conference

March 26 & 27, 2015 | Hotel Novotel Toronto

Early Bird Ends Thursday March 19

Passes start at $399. Early Bird Registration closes March 19 - to register and for more information, visit http://qrc2015.mria-arim.ca/register/register.php

Keynote Speaker – Hugh MacPhie –A leading Business strategist, focus group Moderator and Author of “Don’t Forget your Cape! What Pre-schoolers Teach Us About Leadership and Life.”

Keynote Speaker – Laurie Tema-Lyn –Creative catalyst, market researcher, strategist, coach, muse. Laurie will discuss several studies where in person Consumer Co-Creation Sessions provided

powerful learning to impact client decision-making.

“The Write Stuff”Qualitative Reports Evaluated by a Client Panel. Hear from Coca Cola, BMO, Shoppers Drug Mart and Tim Hortons.

Mobile Research in Action: For those who want to get involved there is the opportunity to participate in a live mobile research project during the Conference. Results will be reported at the end of the day.

9 Roundtable Breakouts:“Hot Topic” roundtable discussions

Applied Learning Workshops: Learning Workshops conducted by leading qualitative researchers will be held on Thursday afternoon, followed by a “Dine Around Evening” of networking.

#i3qrc

#i3qrc

vueMARCH 2015

VUE MAGAZINE IS PUBLISHED BY THE MARKETING RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE

ASSOCIATION TEN TIMES A YEAR

ADDRESSThe Marketing Research and Intelligence Association

L’association de la recherche et de l’intelligence marketing

21 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 1102, Toronto, ON M4T 1L9Tel: (416) 642-9793

Toll Free: 1-888-602-MRIA (6742)Fax: (416) 644-9793

Email: vue@mria-arim.ca Website: www.mria-arim.ca

PRODUCTION: LAYOUT/DESIGNLS Graphics Inc.

Tel: (905) 743-0402, Toll Free: 1-800-400-8253

Fax: (905) 728-3931Email: info@lsgraphics.com

CONTACTS CHAIR OF PUBLICATIONS, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Annie Pettit, PhD, Chief Research Officer, Peanut Labs(416) 273-9395

annie@peanutlabs.com

MANAGING EDITORAnne Marie Gabriel, CAE, MRIA

amgabriel@mria-arim.ca

ASSOCIATE EDITORSJeff Hecker

jeff.hecker@athenabrand.com

Paul Long, CMRPpaul@paullong.ca

COPY EDITORDiane Peters

diane.peters@sympatico.ca

Interested in joining the Vue editorial team? Contact us at vue@mria-arim.ca

2015 ADVERTISING RATESFrequent advertisers receive discounts. Details can be

found by going to: www.mria-arim.ca/advertising/vue.asp

Please email vue@mria-arim.ca to book your ad. The deadline for notice of advertising is the first of

the previous month. All advertising material must be at the MRIA office

on the 5th of the month.

Original articles and Letters to the Editor are welcome. Materials will be reviewed by the Vue Editorial Team. If accepted for publication, they may be edited for length or clarity and placed in the electronic archives on

the MRIA website.

The opinions and conclusions expressed in Vue are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the

Marketing Research and Intelligence Association.

Publishing Date: March © 2015. All rights reserved. Copyright rests with the Marketing Research and

Intelligence Association or the author.

All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,

mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the

Marketing Research and Intelligence Association or the author. All requests for permission for reproduction must be submitted

to MRIA at publications@mria-arim.ca.

RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TOThe Marketing Research and Intelligence Association

L’Association de la recherche et de l’intelligence marketing

21 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 1102, Toronto, ON M4T 1L9

ISSN 1488-7320

Commentary4 Editor’s Vue

6 Letter from the CEO

SPECIAL FEATURE8 MOBILE IN 2015 & MOBILE MR Navin William

Features12 MY EX-SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMING IN THE

BIG BLUE ABYSS – CO-CREATION IN QUANTITATIVE CONTEXTS Damian Vanderwolf

15 FIVE WAYS YOU CAN MORE EFFECTIVELY SHAPE STRATEGY Yola Zdanowicz

17 THE AVERAGE CONSUMER IS ALIVE AND STATISTICAL Ruth M. Corbin, CMRP

Industry News21 OFF THE RAC

23 MRIA National Board of Directors Elections

24 MRIA Research Registration System (RRS)

25 Summary of MRIA’s Net Gain 2015

27 MRIA Governance

29 Congratulations to our new CMRPs

32 MRIA Qualitative Research Registry (QRR)

Columnists30 Ask Dr. Ruth

31 Perspective on Polling

Advertiser14 ASDE

4 vue | MARCH 2015

COMMENTARY / COMMENTAIRE

Annie Pettit PhD, Chief Research Officer / Directrice de la recherche, Peanut LabsEditor-in-Chief, Vue / Rédactrice en chef, Vue • Email: annie@peanutlabs.com • (416) 273-9395 • t @LoveStats

Please share your opinions about Vue articles and columns, or submit your cartoons and infographics to the Editor. La rédactrice vous invite à lui faire parvenir directement vos commentaires, opinions, caricatures ou infographies.

Annie Pettit

EDITOR’S Vue

Does it irk you? Really irk you? Every time you see it in a report or hear someone talk about it, do you want to just stand up and proclaim to the world that THIS ISN’T RIGHT! But in all honesty, you know that no one cares about your opinion so you just sit still and mumble under breath about the atrocity?

Have no fear. I’ve been there too. Just recently, I felt like I was the only person who cared about an issue. Some people would casually mention the problem but then shrug their shoulders and move on. But I had enough.

If you’re a fan of social media, you may have noticed I went on a rampage over the last few weeks complaining about how the of margin of error is often reported when generalizing from non-probability samples to the population. I decided to moderate an online panel with experts who knew the topic far better than me. I wrote multiple (too many?) blogs posts and posted them everywhere I could think of. I ranted and raved about it.

And you know what? I found more than 600 people who registered for the webinar. I found many hundreds of people who retweeted and reshared and emailed and forwarded the blog posts everywhere. I found an unbelievable number of people who cared just as much as I did. All I had to do was speak up.

So let me ask you. When was the last time you spoke up and demanded air-time for an issue that was important to you? That last horrible questionnaire draft? That last dreadfully boring presentation? That last 200 page plus appendices report?

Maybe now is your time to speak up and make it right.

La chose vous irrite. Sérieusement. Chaque fois que vous la voyez ou l’entendez votre sang bout et vous trépignez de colère. « C’EST PAS CORRECT » voulez-vous vous écrier. Mais comme vous le savez que trop bien, le monde se fout pas mal de votre opinion. Alors vous vous renfrognez et gardez le tout pour vous-même.

Croyez-moi, vous n’êtes pas seul(e). Tout récemment j’étais certaine que j’étais la seule qui se souciait de la question. Oui, certains la mentionnait, mais sans jamais de conviction ou de ras-le-bol dans la voix. Mais là, j’en ai assez.

Si vous suivez les médias sociaux vous savez que je me suis souvent élevée ces dernières semaines, avec rage, contre la pratique de mentionner une marge d’erreur quand on généralise depuis un processus d’échantillonage non probabiliste. J’ai donc décidé d’animer en ligne un panel d’experts qui s’y connaissent beaucoup plus que moi. J’ai aussi posté plusieurs (trop?) interventions sur de nombreux blogues. Je l’avoue : j’ai déliré et fulminé comme une enragée.

Le résultat? Plus de 600 personnes se sont inscrites au webinaire. Des centaines d’autres ont transmis et retransmis mes interventions via courriels et tweets. Bref, je n’étais pas seule du tout. Bien des gens pensaient exactement comme moi. Mais il a fallu que j’exprime publiquement ma rage pour l’apprendre.

Permettez-moi maintenant de vous poser une question. À quand remonte votre dernière expression publique de ras-le-bol? À cette affreuse ébauche de questionnaire? À cette présentation ennuyante au possible? Au dernier rapport lourd comme une brique?

Peut-être serait-il temps que vous nous le laissiez tous savoir!

Kristin Luck Serial Entrepreneur former President of Decipher

Steve LevyCOO, Market Research Canada East, Ipsos

Paul SmithCorporate Trainer in Leadership and Storytelling Techniques

Lisa RitchieSenior Vice President, Customer Knowledge and Insights, Scotiabank

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS PINNACLE SPONSOR

PLATINUM SPONSORS

GOLD SPONSORS

BRONZE SPONSORS

MEDIA SPONSOR

SILVER SPONSORS

CURRENT SPONSORS

CURRENT EXHIBITORS

What’s New for 2015 – Bigger, Better, with lots of Stories to tell! More than 70 speakers, 40 exhibitors, 30+ client-side presenters, student competitions, excellence in research awards, artists, musicians, contests, door pizes, paparazzi photographers... can you really afford not to attend?

Visit our website to learn more http://conference2015.mria-arim.ca/news/index.php

SPECIAL GUEST – WORKSHOP LEADER

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

Insightrix_logo.pdf 1 11/13/2013 1:03:57 PM

[Logit]the GO TO people

Registration NOW OPEN!

Member rates starting at $1,095

d

6 vue | MARCH 2015

COMMENTARY / COMMENTAIRE

LETTER FROM THE CEO

Kara Mitchelmore

COMPLIANCE – THE NEXT WAVE OF CHANGE With spring hopefully around the corner, it is time for MRIA to do some spring cleaning. With the standards now revised we turn our attention to compliance. Compliance is a vital component for any self-regulating profession. According to the MRIA Code of Conduct, members are responsible for maintaining and increasing the public trust. Complying with standards shows the public that unlike unskilled non-members, members are of a higher calibre. As we continue to compete with these unskilled non-members in the industry, this differentiation is a competitive advantage.

To assist with compliance, MRIA is in the process of hiring a Compliance Officer (CO). This individual’s role will include:

• Revamp the Gold Seal Certification process to be more inclusive of emergent technologies, while ensuring that the standards are maintained consistently. Gold Seal certifications and recertification’s will commence in June 2015

• Ensure compliance to reporting to the RRS and QRR. With the move to a new corporate fee structure in 2014, these registries are no longer an additional cost item for participants. As they are vital tools for protecting the public trust, this will be an area of concentration

• Increase compliance to monthly revenue reporting and the annual Financial Activity Survey. With the changes to the reporting structure made in 2014, all corporate members are now required to participate in these important industry benchmark surveys. The CO will

LA CONFORMITÉ : LA PROCHAINE VAGUE DE CHANGEMENTS Le printemps n’est plus loin et l’heure du ménage a sonné à l’ARIM. Maintenant que les normes ont été amendées il nous faut se tourner vers la conformité à celles-ci. La conformité est essentielle à l’autoréglementation de toute profession. En vertu du code de déontologie de l’ARIM, ses membres sont tenus de conserver et de rehausser la confiance du public. La conformité aux normes de nos membres rehausse notre image auprès du public, nous démarque des non-membres, moins compétents, et nous procure un avantage concurrentiel de taille sur ces derniers.

Dans le but d’appuyer cet engagement à la conformité, l’ARIM recrute en ce moment un ou une chef de la conformité. Parmi les responsabilités qui incomberont à cette personne, relevons :

• Refondre le processus d’agrément Sceau d’or afin qu’il soit plus inclusif des nouvelles technologies, et veiller à la conformité permanente aux normes. L’agrément Sceau d’or et son processus d’obtention reprendront au mois de juin 2015.

• Voir à la conformité à l’obligation de présenter les documents visés au Système d’enregistrement de la recherche (SRQ) et au Registre de la recherche qualitative (RRQ). En vertu des changements apportés à la tarification des adhésions corporatives en 2014, les rapports présentés aux registres ne font plus l’objet de frais additionnels. Comme ces registres sont des outils essentiels au maintien de la confiance du public, nous axerons de nombreux efforts de ce côté.

• Rehausser le taux de conformité aux obligations de déclaration des revenus mensuels et au

vue | MARCH 2015 7

commentar ycommentairework directly will all MRIA corporate members

throughout the year in making the required

changes

• Monitor and audit CMRPs for continuous

professional learning and development. In those

instances where there is non-compliance, the CO

will work with individual members to bring them

to required levels

• Monitor member companies that are not

adhering to MRIA standards and work with them

to ensure compliance

• Offer administrative support to the Standards

Committee and the Complaints council to ensure

that complaints are dealt with efficiently and

effectively

Members have made it clear that they value

standards and their enforcement. MRIA is

pleased to move forward on this important

initiative.

sondage annuel sur les activités financières. La participation à ces sondages-étalons est maintenant obligatoire en vertu des amendements apportés en 2014 aux obligations de présentation de l’information financière. Dans le but de faciliter ces changements, le chef de la conformité travaillera l’année durant avec les membres corporatifs de l’ARIM.

• Surveiller et vérifier la conformité des agréés PARM à l’obligation de perfectionnement professionnel continu. La chef apportera son aide à ceux qui sont en contravention de cette obligation.

• Surveiller les efforts des sociétés membres qui ne sont pas en règle mais qui cherchent à corriger la situation.

• Appuyer le Comité des normes et le Conseil des plaintes dans leurs efforts pour assurer le traitement efficace et efficient des plaintes.

Nos membres ont affirmé clairement qu’ils tiennent à ces normes et au respect de celles-ci. L’ARIM est heureuse de participer à la réalisation de cette importante initiative.

Kara Mitchelmore, MBA, FCMA, CMRP, CEO / Présidente-directrice générale Marketing Research and Intelligence Association / L’Association de la recherche et de l’intelligence marketing

Email: kmitchelmore@mria-arim.ca • (416) 642-9793 ext./poste 8724

8 vue | MARCH 2015

FEATURE

Recap of Years Gone By: 2013 and 2014

If we look back a bit before we look ahead, 2013 saw the consolidation of mobile players, mainly:

a) The drop of the independent OSs due to the access of Android as a license-free OS that was available to any manufacturer.

b) The death of Nokia (Nokia and Windows) and the soon to be dead BlackBerry.

Come 2014, we saw the effects of the consolidation with the world divided into the iOS and Android world. The continued growth of Android phones and fragmentation within the Android world saw the rise of three trends in 2014:

a) Arrival of the global Chinese manufacturers in the form of Huawei, ZTE, Lenovo, etc.

b) My phone is not big enough – phablets.

c) Trend towards all phones turning smart (i.e. the death of the feature phone).

Consolidation and Revival

From a mobile handset point of view, there is a move to converge to one of the two OSs for delivery to consumers. So irrespective of mobile manufacturers and allied service providers,

they are all moving to synch their new services with existing OSs – namely Android and iOS. This is not out of love for consumers, but an acknowledgement of the existing installed base and the expected dominance of these two OSs in the coming mobile future. Therefore we are going to see a lot of innovation coming that would all like to go mobile and they will all hop on these two OSs’ installed bases. But unlike parasites, many of these new technologies and innovative services will enhance consumers’ mobile experiences.

The two other OSs still out there and having a chance of reviving their fortunes are BlackBerry and Windows Mobile. However, as things stand:

a) BlackBerry is on a downward spiral and only its large enterprise clients are keeping the company afloat. Even its low-end phones, which did extremely well in key developing markets like Indonesia and Nigeria for a while in 2013/14, are being abandoned in favour of Android phones. Also, the dependence on its older models and services to maintain its diminishing position in the market has made the company and its products irrelevant. Even Nokia, the former king of the feature phone market, stopped supporting its phones (S1, S2 and Symbian OSs) in January 2014.

Connectivity via mobile devices is the trend of the decade,

and the industry is still changing with great velocity.

Those changes are having an ongoing impact on

marketing research. Here’s how this technology will

be influencing our industry for the coming year.

SPEC

IAL MOBILE IN 2015 & MOBILE MR

Navin William

vue | MARCH 2015 9

SPECIAL FEATURE

b) Windows Mobile phones, the new kid on the block post the acquisition of Nokia by Microsoft, is a big foot with deep pockets, but with a tiny footprint at the moment. Microsoft would have to bring serious value or innovation or both to have any realistic chance of being the third wheel in this romance of the OSs. It has managed to build a solid set of phones; however, lacking a complementary mobile ecosystem in which to place it seems like it has come to the party a little too late. But, this is Microsoft, and it may be able to fund these phones longer than most manufacturers, giving them an outside chance of a revival.

This of course assumes that this is a three-horse race, with BlackBerry being dumped on the sidelines. Realistically, however, there’s an opportunity to revive BlackBerry by either merging with an existing player in the market with allied services that may or may not directly involve mobile. After all, BlackBerry’s true value lies in the secure mail content service it provides to enterprises. While Windows needs to find a way of offering true value and innovation to upstage Android and iOS, BlackBerry and Windows may find it worth their while to merge before they get obliterated completely.

2015 for the Dominant Players: Dance for Two

While 2014 saw the dominance of Android, 2015 can be expected to be the year iOS gets its shine back. After ignoring the call for a larger screen for years, Apple finally acknowledged that “size does matter.” With the iPhone 6 and 6S, iOS has joint the phablet party and can be expected to help grow the phablet category further. Launched in the end of 2014, Apple caught the holiday shopping season and reported the largest ever sales figures in corporate history.

“Apple Inc. quarterly results smashed Wall Street

expectations with record sales of big-screen iPhones in

the holiday shopping season and a 70 percent rise in

China sales, powering the company to the largest profit

in corporate history. The company sold 74.5 million

iPhones in its fiscal first quarter ended Dec. 27.”

Reuters, January 2015

Apple can be expected to continue to play in the premium sector, and therefore it may not grow its share of the market significantly. But the company can be expected to hold onto its share in 2015 and will not lose further ground to Android. This OS has had quite a free run in the past couple of years, including in the premium segment. The likes of Samsung, HTC, Sony and others have been eating into iOSs dominance by offering Android phones with high specification comparable

with Apple devices – and in some instances exceeding iOS phones, particularly in pricing. This year will see a consolidation of Apple’s iOS as the preferred choice of the well-heeled. In developing markets, Apple’s growth will almost come exclusively from China from a volume perspective. If Apple decides to tinker with pricing to conform to PPP (Price Power Parity) of developing nations, there’s a good chance that it can come to dominate the premium segment across all developing markets where the premium Android phones are currently Numero Uno.

Android phones, in the meantime, are going to consolidate their position as the people’s phone, and have offerings across the spectrum of handsets in the market from premium to entry level. The war of the phones in 2015 and beyond will be less about the brand but the ecosystem and services tied to it. For example, two manufacturers who are having tremendous success initially in China and now are exporting their success overseas are Xiomi and OnePlus. Xiomi bundle its content service with its phones but are still tied to Android. OnePlus only sell its phones via an online referral program, which has spurred demand.

Consumers will choose an iOS for iTunes and other Apple cloud services and Android will be chosen for Google and its allied services. In China, however, Android buyers must integrate with other cloud services, given that Chinese manufacturers are not preinstalling Google services on their phones sold in China, but substituting with homegrown services such as Baidu Maps. This leaves a small window (very small, with the potential of one billion customers) of opportunity for a Chinese homegrown OSs to come into the fray.

Only The Smart Remain

For years, analysts have quoted reams on smartphones and the definition has been evolving, debated and dissected continuously. In January 2014, Nokia announced it was not going to support its Symbian platform any longer, which was the final nail in its coffin. After enjoying a dominant share of the mobile handset market just half a decade ago, Nokia is, for all practical purposes, dead. However, we must note that in the developing world, especially rural markets where refurbished and traditional feature phones still exist, Nokia’s installed base is still considerable, though it’s slowly giving way to the Android juggernaut. This effectively means that by the end of 2015, there would be only one definition of handsets: smartphones. The feature phone will be a classic consigned to the relics of history like the telex machine. In fact, the first business-only smartphone BlackBerry, in todays’ fast evolving phone market, is a relic already and is in danger of being dubbed the “featureless phone.”

10 vue | MARCH 2015

The Wearables: Parasites Defined in a Good Way

Looking ahead to 2015, we can expect a lot of action as the whole definition of mobile is being reframed. A whole host of wearable technologies is increasingly becoming consumer friendly and being adopted at an alarming pace globally. Google Glass came into the world with a bang and went into the shadows with a whimper; it was probably a bit ahead of the times. Other wearables are slowly gaining acceptability, which will fuel more wearable products. The return of Google Glass and similar products in the future is also possible.

Running wristbands with an app to sync into is already an established product in the market and as 2015 unfolds we are increasingly going to see more wristbands, armbands, watches, glasses, cameras, anklets, sensors in public places, wearable clothing with built-in sensors and sensors embedded in inanimate objects in homes and other public places.

Safe and LegalIt is well recognized that wearable technology is growing rapidly and will continue to grow. What is not clear is how these technologies will sit with privacy advocates and regulators. The rules at play at the moment are not clear or known. Often, new mobile apps and services collect far more data than is required during an installation or interaction with consumers’ phones. Even if a consumer signs an agreement or waiver, it is nothing short of being under duress, as no one has the time to read through long reams of legal agreements. As the loopholes or lack of laws are exploited, slowly but surely the laws are being put into place; however, the technology and its allied services are growing at a much faster pace. How long this cat and mouse game will continue is anybody’s guess. Eventually, certain privacy precautions will have to be taken by individuals irrespective if there is a law or not; and by responsible corporations and service providers. If regulatory bodies step in to define rules to ensure no exploitation is undertaken without choking the life out of

SPECIAL FEATURE

Historical sales figures, in millions

Worldwide Smartphone Forecast by Shipments and Value, 2014 and 2018

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone

Year2009

2014 Q1 - Q3

Android (Google)

6.8

734.06

iOS(Apple)

24.89

125.59

Windows Mobile/Phone

(Microsoft)

15.03

22.63

BlackBerry (formerly RIM)

34.35

5.82

Symbian (Nokia)

80.88

Palm/WebOS (Palm/HP)

1.19

Bada (Samsung)

Other

1.61

Shipment (M units)

Android

iOS

Windows Phone

Other OS

Total

Value (US$M)

Android

iOS

Windows Phone

Other OS

Total

1,060

178

35

14

1,288

255,102

116,540

7,782

3,480

382, 904

82.3%

13.8%

2.7%

1.1%

100.0%

66.6%

30.4%

2.0%

0.9%

100.0%

1,498

240

105

30

1,873

275, 248

152,626

19,033

4,862

451,769

80.0%

12.8%

5.6%

1.6%

100.05

60.9%

33.8%

4.2%

1.1%

100.0%

9.0%

7.8%

31.4%

20.4%

9.8%

1.9%

7.0%

25.1%

8.7%

4.2%

Looking beyond 2014 right up to 2018, the chart below is very unimpressive, yet revealing. It basically says that in the next four years, the world of handsets will largely be the same. Android & iOS will maintain their relative shares largely intact; Windows will grow marginally and other miscellaneous OSs will be negligible. So if the mobile world in terms of the players in the market isn’t going to change, what is? Is there no innovation expected by the mobile players in the market? The answer to that is yes and no. Yes, there will be tons of innovation. No, most of it will not be led by the mobile manufacturers. The future looks to belong to innovators who will work around the mobile ecosystems and utilize them as channels to reach and enhance consumers’ lives.

2014* 2014* 2018* 2018* 2014-2018

Market Share Market Share CAGR

Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker, December 1, 2014

vue | MARCH 2015 11

SPECIAL FEATURE

innovation, that would be an added benefit. However, don’t hold your breath, as the dance with the ever-growing mobile technologies is here to stay. The regulators need to thread a fine line of being an overzealous nanny and the cool parent.

What’s Coming In 2015 and the Impact on Marketing Research

Wearables and Sensors – Wearable technologies and sensors will continue to grow in access, sensitivity and sophistication. They will go beyond wristbands to having sensors embedded in fabric, inanimate objects and locations. Sensors will start to become part of non-mobile objects and devices, and they’ll be able to talk to consumers’ mobile devices. The growth in application of these new wearables and sensors will be defined by how they enhances consumers’ lives. Mobiles will increasingly develop into a one-stop remote control for all activities and devices consumers are connected to. Applications such as: mobile payment; targeted store promotions/coupons/discounts; and location-based and dynamic/spontaneous/on-demand services will drive both growth and innovation. Marketing research will have to find a way of measuring the impact and behaviour of the evolving mobile consumer in the new digitally connected world.

Customized for “Me” – Generic apps and other services will increasingly get personalized. For instance, consumers will get direct offers when entering a zone with WiFi, beacons or other connection avenues. For instance, when arriving at a mall, a consumer carrying a mall discount card would be greeted by robot speaker wishing him or her a great day. On opening their phone, there would be a notification listing all the stores having a sale including a reminder to pick up their dry cleaning. Consumers will also download apps that come personalized based on behavioural data available publically or from service providers. These innovations will enhance consumer experiences but will also create new challenges for marketing researchers to understand changing consumer behaviour.

Mobile Commerce and Big Data – As the world moves further into ecommerce, driven by giants like Alibaba and Amazon, commerce will be dominated by the rise of anytime anywhere shopping, with consumers increasing using their mobile devices to shop both online and offline. For marketing researchers, the planned and spontaneous purchase cycles will change, and industry professionals will need new models to monitor and track consumer behaviour. The dominance of ecommerce in the marketplace will also give rise to live sales data delivery of consumer trends. The cycle time between data collection and delivery with keep dropping – until it’s real time. Big Data will not be a talking point but will evolve into commodity services that will straddle multiple functions: marketing, CRM and marketing research services, blurring roles and lines. But like all such concepts, the key will be clear definitions of objectives and targets for actionable insights to be delivered.

Size Does Not Matter – The whole debate over size of screens will be lost in the ability of consumers to be able to access data and services across multiple screens. However, the average screen size of mobile devices will continue to grow. Apple, a laggard in the last couple of years in consumer screen sizes, will again be the median to aim for in mobile screen sizes.

Content and Media Consumption – Consumers will increasingly use their mobile devices to consume content and media, be it news, search, gaming entertainment, music, personal albums or watching movies and video content. Advertising and media measurement tools will need to increasingly take notice of this channel and find ways of enticing and measuring the impact of this soon-to-be dominant medium. Media research will get increasingly sophisticated, real time and dynamic.

It’s More Than Mobile Messaging – Those using their mobile messaging services like WhatsApp will see these services change drastically and become one-stop portals for content and personal communication including dating, ecommerce and everything in between. Services like China’s homegrown messaging service WeChat already offers multiple services within its single messaging service app. For instance, WeChat already has over 100 million consumers registered for with Tenpay (Tencent Holdings’ payment gateway), allowing consumers to purchase goods and services from within WeChat. That’s 20 per cent of its registered active consumer base, which is expected to grow significantly in the coming year not just in China, but globally. Already, companies like MobileMeasure – and I am sure others – have started to build mobile-only communities and panels to tap into for surveys and data collection. For marketing research, messaging platforms have the potentially achieve the Holy Grail of research: faster, better, cheaper.

New World, New Norms – It’s a new world, and mobile is part of a transformation of lifestyles. Consumers are changing faster than we can classify them. How consumers are utilizing mobile devices is changing rapidly. How people behave can be influenced by the simple fact of ownership of a particular phone type, or their access to certain services, even more so than traditional factors such as income, age, location, etc. Consumers will increasingly behave contrary to established consumer classifications and demand more dynamic models to fit the times.

Marketing research as a whole will need to evolve in both definition and speed. Mobile marketing research has finally come out of the shadows and it’s now time to rewrite the rules as the roles within marketing begin to blur, including market research.

Wishing you much mobility and success in 2015 as the world around you mobilizes!

Navin Williams, CEO of MobileMeasure, is a pioneer in the adoption and evolution of mobile market research. Navin has authored The Handbook of Mobile Market Research, a book endorsed by ESOMAR and published by Wiley. He lives in Shanghai with his wife and two children. He can be reached at navin@mobile-measure.com.

12 vue | MARCH 2015

While studying social science, I was employed as a marketing research interviewer, conducting both telephone and face-to-face interviews – the coal face. Fresh from completing my degree, I had a short stint in an entry-level client service position before moving on to the Australian Bureau of Statistics graduate program where I was trained to manage large-scale fieldwork (i.e., population surveys and the census). I diverted away from marketing and social research and dabbled in a few sectors before returning to marketing research in my late 20s. At this point, online sample provision was burgeoning and, given my fieldwork background, I began working as a project manager for a sample provider – effectively a supplier for the marketing research industry.

In my work, we often had “us and them” discussions about our clients. These conversations often stemmed from the our perceived lack of understanding and unrealistic pressures from research agencies, about how cutting corners could lead to reduced quality, how respondent experience needed to be considered in survey design (not just data output), and wanting to be viewed as part of their team rather than “just another supplier.” Yet we smiled and continued to service our clients.

After attempting to persuade agencies that the knowledge gained in fieldwork provision was useful in a client service role, I eventually began working within an agency as an analyst (a move to the “dark side”). My experience at the supply end of the research industry came in handy when managing relationships with sample providers (good news: steps were made to making those relationships more collaborative).

Though somehow the pressure of the project and the needs of our clients seemed to take priority, and some of those things I said I’d never do, I started doing – like squeezing time out of fieldwork or designing questionnaires that I knew respondents would despise for the sake of the data output – client is king, right? Those “us and them” conversations continued on though – this time with one “us” and two “thems.” The sample providers didn’t seem to understand the research needs, they seemed to just want to fill quotas, and the clients didn’t understand the pressures and constraints of the research process. They didn’t seem to understand that good research can sometimes require time, they wanted results – yesterday! Yet we smiled and continued to service our clients.

Now I am on the “darkest side” – working on the client side on the research team of a research buyer. And guess what? That’s right, those “us and them” conversations are still occurring. We want more for less. More insight in less time, more data for less money, more questions answered with fewer questions asked. We want our research agency to understand that the surveys we undertake are one of the main ways that we “talk” to our market – our customers – and understand how they think about us.

FEATURE

Damian Vanderwolf

My career in research so far has been a diverse one, some may say somewhat uncommon. Not unheard of – but definitely uncommon.

MY EX-SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMING IN THE BIG BLUE ABYSS – CO-CREATION IN QUANTITATIVE CONTEXTS

We want more for less. More insight in less time, more data for less money, more questions answered with fewer

questions asked.

vue | MARCH 2015 13

We want our suppliers to be able to understand what we already know about our market and build upon it. Yet somehow, with all the timelines that we need to adhere to and the pressure from our market team to “give us the insight,” this learning needs to happen by osmosis. So how do we resolve all these competing needs and wants; how do we create the space that allows all stakeholders in the research process to rationalize their/our needs; how do we stop treading water at different ends of the ocean and start synchronized swimming?!

Let’s consider the notion of co-creation – something that a number of qualitative teams have been “across” for some time now. Qualitative researchers in this space have become the conjoint for clients and customers to sit in a room and eyeball each other, workshop ideas and come out with a new, changed and/or affirmed view. Effectively they have become more transparent – removed the one-way mirror, if you will – and literally sat in the same room. This, I believe, means that the conceptual notion that “data is people” is no longer conceptual but real and customers are given the chance to feel like they are contributing to development of the brands/products/services that they use. And while this can muddy the well-established research process and add a layer of complexity when it comes to drawing out the insights, I’m confident all parties benefit.

So what about the quanties? Most quantitative research, these days at least, is conducted with a lot of cable, radio waves and a screen between the client, researcher and participants – obscuring our view our ability to “eyeball” each other. The researchers and the clients may occasionally sit in a room together or talk on the phone but generally most of the communication, the relationship building is done online. This poses a challenge to the idea of co-creation in a quantitative research context. So let’s rethink the idea of co-creation. It doesn’t have to be face to face all the time. It doesn’t have to happen at one time all the time and it most definitely limited to “fuzzy front end” of qualitative research for new product development. Designing a survey is a form of creation and of course drawing out and reporting insights is very much a creative process. So, quanties – let’s co-create too!

So what do we need to co-create? According to Allen, Bailetti and Tanev, there are four key components of co-creation (http://timreview.ca/article/301). These are:• Open learning and dialogue (the highest rated of the four

component).• Resource sharing.• Personalisation.• Co-production.

They also believe that to show that an organization is committed to co-creation, three of the four of these components need to be demonstrated. I believe that elements of all four are very much able to be infused into qualitative approaches. Here’s how:

The number one consideration is that, “Even the most ingenious invention will be a market failure if it does not meet the needs of the customers” (International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol 19, no 4). This idea should be at the forefront of all of the work we do as quantitative marketing researchers We talk about this a lot but we actually

must remember this at all times. This idea needs to pervade at all points in the research process. The sample providers that “push back” to their clients about respondent experience are the ones that should be rewarded with the work. They are the heroes, not the enemy.

Research participants: the client’s customers should be recruited during the early phases of the research process through what has been referred to by some in the industry as Early Stage Scoping (http://www.amstat.org/meetings/ices/2012/papers/301938-A.pdf ). Present the client’s customers’ with the research idea in its rough form and see whether it is a question they can actually answer, or whether it is even a question worth answering – you might be surprised by what they tell you. You will definitely be enlightened. This usually takes the form of qualitative interviews and as little as four to six might be all you need – relatively cheap and useful in my opinion.

Consider who you are talking to. Change the language of the survey to

suit the audience, and always remember participants are people.

Once you have completed the early scoping, the client should be invited to workshop the structure of the survey. Often this is the only opportunity for client’s views to be heard before the survey draft is delivered. Often this is where those “us and them” conversations happen, as the client will invariably be unhappy and the survey, in my experience, needs to be heavily revised. Take the client along with you for the survey design ride – choreograph your routine together. Admittedly, clients will need to be willing to participate – good clients will and the routine will be one that is bound to get a perfect score from the judges!

Consider who you are talking to. Change the language of the survey to suit the audience, and always remember participants are people. I also recommend keeping two-way communication channels open within the survey; allow respondents to give you their feedback about the survey at the end of the survey. And of course, if you receive “wisdom” from a participant, let them know how you have implemented their feedback. Remember, open learning and dialogue is the most important aspect of co-creation.

After drafting the survey, you may want to consider taking customers through some cognitive interviews to test the survey more deeply, but this can be time consuming and costly. The next best thing is taking additional time in the piloting phase to thoroughly review the survey. At this point, researchers really need to become “survey whisperers” and listen out for what response patterns are telling you. Are sections boring (‘latliners)? Are they confusing (response patterns that don’t make sense)? Is the survey too long? Are people using mobiles to answer or not? If not, why not? Dissect the survey; be the survey whisperer.

FEATURE

14 vue | MARCH 2015

In the analysis and reporting phase, consider changing the format of the report to a brand story, business plan, or a workshop to create a collaborative space. Some recommend that the report be reduced to a single page; however, this should only be attempted if you feel you have “the answer,” or if you feel that you have spent the time in the analysis to really understand the insight your client wants. At the very least a creative and clever infographic style should be woven into the story to help engage. You might even want to bring the participants back on board here (using video, image or sounds files) if possible.

On a bigger picture level, the research agency needs to be considered as part of the team on a day-to-day basis. An example of this is that we report internally on a key data source every quarter. It wasn’t until recently that we realized that the results we report on are as important to the agency as they are to us, so now we invite them. We also include them in our internal social networking tool so they can be a part of the organization-wide conversation and knowledge sharing.

This segues into the methods by which we tend to acquire agencies. The way the agency is acquired can set the tone for the way we interact with one another. We prioritize aspects like timelines and budget and establish an “us and them” dynamic at the onset of the relationship where one has to prove oneself worthy through price/service battles with other agency – potentially losing sight of the all-important working relationship. This can often to the detriment of the research – and ultimately, the customers/consumers/participants/end

users. Perhaps the focus of this process needs to be revisited and revised (#justsaying).

At the end of the day, it comes back to the fundamentals – the key to co-creation is communication. Effective, continual holistic communication. Researchers are the conduit between the market and the client. Facilitating effective communication, in all its manifestations, is our key responsibility. Drowning is not an option, treading water is far from ideal, wading just won’t do – elegant, cohesive synchronized swimming at the deepest end of the ocean. Esther Williams don’t got nothin’ on a quantitative researcher who co-creates! #justsayin.

Damian Vanderwolf is a senior research analyst, marketing communications at Tourism NT. He can be reached at Damian.Vanderwolf@nt.gov.au and tweets at @damovan.

FEATURE

It’s a vast market out there,but we can help you get to know it better.Putting your finger on the human pulse. Any numbers. Any time.

We get what you need.

888-323-3651www.surveysampler.com

Telephone sampling, IVR and related services.

341642432154

7411

923

97

547541

2415 59134261000107

9706

1274

762

693

916

121

vue | MARCH 2015 15

FEATURE

A Two-Way Street

How do we ensure research informs strategy? Both in-house insights managers and research consultants have vital roles to play. Together we need to produce research that:

• Tells a concise and dynamic story. • Generates new learning. • Provides solutions to business issues.

Here are five things that you can do to help achieve this goal.

In-house Insights Managers:

1. Share Your Strategic Brand Plan Research can’t contribute to strategy if consultants don’t understand how the initiative fits into the big picture and aligns with brand tactics. To find an intelligent and unique solution to your business issue, suppliers need to understand the current brand plan, as well as what’s been done in the past.

Without access to the strategic plan, research will lack focus and can never be truly inspiring and forward thinking. Worse than that, it runs a high risk of duplicating what you’ve already done and frustrating research consultants who are in the dark.

Establish a concise library of brand resources for suppliers. Ideal assets include a strategic brand plan outlining competitive strengths, weaknesses, key selling messages, as well as current ad campaigns, customer programs and PR initiatives. Short summaries of prior research would also be ideal.

2. Bring Together all the Stakeholders Research needs to live and breathe throughout a company in order to contribute to strategy.

The most successful projects are those that involve key internal stakeholders (brand, sales, corporate communications, etc.) and external PR and ad agencies from the beginning.

Bring these players to the table for the project-briefing meeting. Ensure everyone is onside with respect to the business issue. Discuss what each player needs from the research to further brand strategy. Hearing directly from these individuals is critical for suppliers.

Reconvene this group when the results are presented. Consultants’ recommendations are the first step to informing strategy. Stakeholders and suppliers should workshop these suggestions to flesh out next steps for each piece of the business.

3. Make Concise and Strategic Storytelling a Condition of EmploymentAny research consultant can come up with a glossy sales sheet and claim they excel at storytelling. Push suppliers to demonstrate their strategic and storytelling prowess before you hire them or place them on your procurement list. Level the playing field for all prospective consultants by asking them to create a story from a set of standardized data tables and background information. See whether they can engage you.

Once you hire a firm, set strict guidelines for storytelling and insist the team provides concrete solutions to your business issue. Be proscriptive: ten slides or less for an upfront strategic summary and no more than thirty slides to flesh out the story (if you need it). Look for opportunities to leverage dynamic storytelling tools such as interactive dashboards.

One caveat: a poignant story isn’t cheaper than the longwinded version. Curating a concise story requires a great deal of thought, creativity and time. There is an enduring truth to American humourist Mark Twain’s quip, “I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”

Yola Zdanowicz

Making research more strategic has been an industry mantra for decades, but sadly we still have a long way to go.

Research isn’t being used to its full potential. Marketers are still given one hundred page reports and are left struggle to discern the story, let alone how to integrate the information into their brand plans.

We need to treat all research as strategic. Every project should move a brand forward – whether it helps decide on a tactic or helps shape the bigger picture.

FIVE WAYS YOU CAN MORE EFFECTIVELY SHAPE STRATEGY

Photo by John Weight Photography (w

ww.johnw

eight.com)

16 vue | MARCH 2015

4. Engage Your CustomersCustomers are bored of standard answers to basic questions. Make your research dynamic. Inspire customers with new angles and techniques and they will think more deeply about your business issue. You’re bound to learn something new.

Allocate research funds for innovative projects even if it means putting a tracking study on hold. Get people talking to each other and sharing their stories through multiple types of media, after all, that’s what many are doing in their own life with Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Pinterest. Videos and pictures really bring the story alive for marketers.

5. Move to an Agency of Record RelationshipYou have long-term relationships with your ad agencies and PR firms, so why not with your research partners?

Hiring different firms for each piece of research isn’t conducive to informing strategy. Moreover, it’s extremely time consuming and inefficient.

With an agency of record arrangement you can vet and select research consultants that have the acumen to deliver on a big picture research program for the brand. A deeper relationship will increase the strategic potential of research; research will be more thoughtful and dynamic. Together you and the agency of record can collaborate more effectively to ensure the research plan and resulting brand strategy adapts to changing market realities and informs emerging brand tactics.

Research Consultants:

1. Think Like MarketersYour end clients are marketers, not researchers. Tailor your approach to a marketing audience.

Drop the research jargon. Words like methodology, data collection, regression analysis and coding have no relevance to marketers. These terms just distance you from your customers.

Don’t get sucked into the minutiae. Always tie research back to the business issue. The goal is to tell marketers whether to move forward, how and who to target.

2. Be a CuratorYour job is to determine what is noteworthy and relevant to clients’ business issues; it is not to report back on every question ever asked.

Putting everything into a report doesn’t require a great deal of thought and certainly doesn’t demonstrate strategic acumen. Resist the temptation to build the shell of the report before you get the results. You can’t possibly know the story until you hear from customers. Tell an eloquent story by curating results that provide solutions to the client’s business issue.

3. Develop Team Storytelling and Strategic Prowess It is your responsibility to ensure that all members of the team have strategic prowess. Strategic thinking shouldn’t be the sole domain of senior team members.

Bring junior researchers to client meetings and ensure they understand the strategic plan for the brand. During the design phase, ensure all team members know how each component of the research relates to the client’s business objective.

Don’t relegate junior team members to crank out slides and then have senior consultants add recommendations at the end. Engage in team brainstorming to build the story.

4. Collaborate It’s time for researchers to move away from just selling their own box and move toward a more collaborative business model. Keep in step with growing trends and take a page from crowdsourcing and the collaborative economy. Teamwork allows each player to capitalize on their strengths and collectively generate new, inspiring ideas.

Tap into the plethora of new, innovative platforms now available to research firms to engage customers and generate new learning. Augment your visual storytelling by collaborating with creative professionals such as graphic designers, photographers and videographers.

We need to treat all research as strategic. Every project should move a brand

forward – whether it helps decide on a tactic or helps shape the bigger picture.

5. Crank up the Delivery Research lives or dies based on how well the story is told. It’s not only about the content; the delivery is crucial.

As a rule, however, researchers aren’t riveting public speakers. Many break even the most basic tenets, turning their back to their audience and reading slides verbatim. As strategic consultants, you need to be dynamic storytellers – you need to be indispensable and offer more than what is in your report.

Become exemplary public speakers. Killer presentations will not only ensure research informs strategy but will elevate market research as a profession.

What Do You Think?

I’d love your feedback. Do these suggestions resonate with you? Do you take issue with any of them? What other approaches will ensure research informs strategy? Let’s collaborate and be more strategic.

Yola Zdanowicz is the founder of Ensemble Strategies, a strategic research firm. She is a brand builder with 25 years’ experience. A brand and communication consultant, she runs hands-on workshops on how to augment the strategic potential of research. Previously, Yola led research practices at Vision Critical and Ipsos. Yola can be reached at yola@ensemblestrategies.com.

FEATURE

vue | MARCH 2015 17

FEATURE

The Moron in a Hurry: From Disparaged Outsider to Relevant Consumer

A nameless moron in a hurry was catapulted into notoriety by Justice Foster in the 1979 English case Morning Star Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Express Newspapers Limited. That case involved a court action by publishers of the Morning Star, a British Communist Party publication, against the publishers of a new tabloid newspaper called Daily Star. Objection was taken to the use of the word “Star” in the tabloid’s name, because of the alleged risk that consumers would confuse the two. But after citing dramatic dissimilarities between the two newspapers, the judge ruled against the Morning Star, noting – now famously – that “if one puts the two papers side by side, I for myself would find that the two papers are so different in every way that only a moron in a hurry would be misled.”

Later the same year, Lord Denning of the English Court quoted Justice Foster in explaining which members of the public should be considered relevant to applications of trademark law: “The test is whether the ordinary, sensible members of the public would be confused. It is not sufficient that the only confusion would be to a very small, unobservant section of society; or as Foster J. put it recently, if the only person who would be misled was “a moron in a hurry.”1

But how “unobservant” must a person be to warrant exclusion from consideration as an “ordinary sensible member

of the public?” A quick-witted prosecutor in a subsequent English case recognized that being observant or unobservant is a matter of context for any consumer. In Regina v. Boggs (1987), the Bank of England took legal action for forgery and counterfeiting against artist J.S.G. Boggs, who drew fanciful replicas of British paper currency on napkins, bar coasters, paper tablecloths, and similar available media. Boggs exchanged his drawings for goods and services with willing recipients – those who seemingly knew they were obtaining artistic renderings. In defending him, Boggs’ lawyer argued that only a moron in a hurry would confuse his artwork with official currency of the British realm. Retorted the prosecutor, “Okay, but what about a moron in a hurry in a dimly lighted room?” As it turned, out the jury sided with Boggs, finding him not guilty of forgery or counterfeiting. But no challenge was raised to the prosecutor’s depiction of Hurried Moron as consumer surrogate.

Indeed, the next time the phrase was used in an English court, the hapless Moron had finally made it into the club of relevant members of the public. Counsel for Apple Computers, defending the company against a claim of infringement by owners of the Apple record label of the Beatles, argued before the court that “even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about the difference between the two.” The court ruled in his client’s favour.2

Ruth M. Corbin, CMRP

Summary: The legal concept of a “moron in a hurry” has evolved from an object of disparagement, to a criterion for assessing the perceptions of the average consumer. According to growing evidence of how consumers make inferences and judgments, that criterion may not be far off the mark. Human judgment can be hurried and lazy. It is also highly dependent on each individual’s personal history and current frame of mind. Legal applications, where the “average consumer” or the “average reaction” is the benchmark, inevitably require statistical analysis of what constitutes “average.” That conclusion leads one to question the Supreme Court of Canada’s dismissal of consumer evidence as being frequently unnecessary in cases where judges would have familiarity with the products or services in question. Current scientific authority would challenge whether any single trier of fact can put himself/herself in the shoes of the average consumer going about everyday tasks.

THE AVERAGE CONSUMER IS ALIVE AND STATISTICAL

18 vue | MARCH 2015

FEATURE

Canada Yielding to Same, in Appropriate Contexts

Canadian law had, for many years, been rather more sanguine about the care that is taken by ordinary consumers in evaluating trademarks and advertising – or perhaps more polite. Language in Canadian decisions regarding consumers relevant to trademark and advertising law has referred to “persons with an imperfect recollection, who, upon being faced with the defendant’s activities, may well believe there is a connection,”3 “a casual consumer somewhat in a hurry who sees [a trademark] at a time when he or she has no more than an imperfect recollection of the [prior] trade-marks, and does not pause to give the matter any detailed consideration or scrutiny, nor to examine closely the similarities and differences between the marks,”4 or “ordinary hurried purchasers ... persons who take no more than ordinary care to observe that which is staring them in the face.”5

More recently, Justice Russell Zinn gave Canadian credence to the mythical Moron, albeit in a backhanded reference. The case in question, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited v. AREVA NP Canada Ltd. (2009), involved a dispute between two nuclear power corporations using visually similar logos. The court distinguished the appropriate test from that used by Justice Foster in Morning Star (supra), because, it observed, morons in a hurry do not conduct transactions in the nuclear power industry. Wrote the judge, “it is difficult to imagine more sophisticated consumers, and a more prudent procurement process, than exists in the nuclear power business.... In this industry, the fact that Homer Simpson may be confused is insufficient to find confusion.” By implication, the perceptions of Homer-Simpson-equivalents may indeed be relevant to findings of confusion in everyday consumer markets. At least the prototypical moron in a hurry now has a name.

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Gives Respectability to the Homer Simpson Test

In his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman demonstrates that what may appear to be moronic logic to some is just a byproduct of normal fast-action, survival-oriented thinking. Citing more than 40 years of research by psychologists and economists, he describes the two styles of reasoning of the human brain: an automatic, seemingly effortless style that we exercise with no conscious voluntary control (“System 1”) and an attentive, deliberative style that we frequently associate with our own decision-making and self-determination (“System 2”). When we think of ourselves, observes Kahneman, “We identify with System 2, the conscious reasoning self that has beliefs, makes choices and decides what to think about and what to do.” System 1, however, is actually our inner hero, the driver of our everyday patterns of ideas, perceptions, associations and routine behaviour. We are born to adapt to a complex environment with instinctive judgments, shortcuts in reasoning and fast inferences that become honed by experience.

The connection between Kahneman’s authoritative analysis and an apparent hurried moron arises from the former’s illustrations of the errors and biases that can sometimes arise from System 1’s intuitive processing. Optical illusions trick

the eyes; contestants on Let’s Make a Deal make demonstrably irrational choices;6 eyewitnesses to crimes confidently report events that never happened. The same judgments and processes that steer us successfully through thousands of swift and reliable responses a day can sometimes let us down. However, Kahneman resists depicting such judgments, when they steer us astray, as mistakes; he rather characterizes them as departures from classical economic rationality or formal logic, departures that we can usually explain in our own terms. Moreover, he suggests: (a) the price of a few bad decisions is worth the precious gift of intuition that we were born with and (b) for people in roles or jobs where much rides on their decisions, the required disciplined thinking can be learned and applied in order to avoid mistakes.

In short, normal, everyday people whom you respect, whom you might deal with professionally or who might live next door to you – these people, like everyone else, are prone to making hurried, visceral decisions that may occasionally seem inattentive, or irrational, or, in Judge Foster’s terms, “moronic.” Meet the average consumer.

Typically applied to consumer perception of trademarks, advertising and counterfeit goods, the phrase “moron in a hurry” is used to convey why consumers may perceive something more than or less than the facts of what they see, hear or experience. But the underlying principle – the use of shortcuts and intuitions that guide people’s judgments with an invisible hand – is equally applicable to all players in the justice system.

Richard v. Time Stretches Credulity for Some

Despite the seeming acceptance of the moron in a hurry standard as the surrogate for the perceptions of everyday consumers, some legal analysts have questioned whether the 2012 Richard v. Time Inc. decision went too far in accommodating one consumer’s naïveté. In 1999, Jean-Marc Richard received a letter from Time magazine with all-caps font showcasing the following words:

“OUR SWEEPSTAKES RESULTS ARE

NOW FINAL: MR. JEAN MARC

RICHARD HAS WON A CASH PRIZE

OF $833,337.00!”

However, upon closer inspection, a careful reader would note that the announcement was merely the second part of a sentence with conditions about how such a cash prize might be won. The first part of the sentence stated, in small, unbolded font, “If you have and return the Grand Prize winning entry in time and correctly answer a skill-testing question, we will officially announce that…”

Four other all-caps, bolded, exciting messages appeared in the letter:

vue | MARCH 2015 19

FEATURE

“WE ARE NOW AUTHORIZED TO

PAY $833,337.00 IN CASH TO MR.

JEAN MARC RICHARD!” “A BANK

CHEQUE FOR $833,337.00 IS ON

ITS WAY...!” “YOU WILL FORFEIT THE

ENTIRE $833,337.00 IF YOU FAIL

TO RESPOND TO THIS NOTICE!”

and listed among

“LATEST CASH PRIZE WINNERS:

.... MR. JEAN MARC RICHARD,

$833,337.00.”

As with the main announcement, each of these phrases was preceded, in smaller, unbolded font, by some conditional clause. In actual fact, the letter was an invitation to M. Richard to participate in a sweepstakes draw. The letter is displayed below, reproduced from the Supreme Court of Canada’s published decision.

Apparently unfamiliar with the magazine’s timeworn promotional ploy, Mr. Richard believed that he had won the $833,337. He returned the reply coupon to Time, enrolling at the same time for a subscription to the magazine as invited on the coupon. When the monetary prize failed to materialize, he contacted the magazine and learned that his reply coupon did not bear the winning number. He would not be receiving the $833,337 after all, although he would be receiving the monthly subscription for which he had paid. M. Richard took legal action against Time. The case eventually found its way to the Supreme Court of Canada, that court ruling in favour of the complainant. Although the court agreed that the Time magazine letter did not contain any literally false statements, it found that the layout and choice of words misled the recipient into honestly believing he had won the sweepstakes. As such, the letter, “riddled with misleading representations,” said the Court, contravened the Consumer Protection Act of M. Richard’s home province of Quebec. M. Richard was awarded damages of $16,000.

Of particular note, the Supreme Court decision articulates clearly the nature of consumers whose “general impressions” should be considered in such cases: the general impression is to be analyzed from the perspective of a credulous and inexperienced consumer, one who “is not particularly experienced at detecting the falsehoods or subtleties found in commercial representations” (para. 71). Those who have smugly detected the scam being perpetrated in emails from a Nigerian prince offering million-dollar commissions for accepting overseas money transfers, or from a ship captain leaving you a personal voicemail inviting you on a free cruise, may find it overreaching for Canadian law to now be modified to accommodate consumers whose credulity and inexperience lead them to make foolish choices.

But those with such concerns may draw comfort from one undisputed point. The standard is still one of “averages.” The Supreme Court decision explicitly said so. The Richard case need not be thought of as setting the bar too low for what should be considered an average consumer taking ordinary care: M. Richard was gainfully employed, bilingual and methodical; the Quebec Court of Appeal had described him as “a well-informed businessman.” He had read the Time letter several times, and solicited a second opinion on its meaning from his boss. His priority attention to bolded words in the letter from Time magazine, his expectation of truth in the bolded phrases and his subsequent search for confirmation of his first impression are all consistent with Kahneman’s explicitly stated examples of normal human judgment.

The wildcard factor for determining future cases is simply – perhaps not simply – how “average” should be defined. It is not implausible that it be defined differently for different consumer contexts. As Kahneman well illustrates, consumers themselves exercise judgment and logic differently in different contexts. There is no single average consumer living happily in some rural town in Alberta. Average reaction is situation-specific.

20 vue | MARCH 2015

FEATURE

Troubling Implications for the Legacy of Masterpiece

In deciding the trademark case Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc. (2011), the Supreme Court of Canada chided the parties for arguing over unnecessary consumer evidence. Judges are also consumers, observed Justice Rothstein, writing for the court. For products and services marketed to the general public, judges “should use their own common sense, excluding influences of their ‘own idiosyncratic knowledge or temperament’ to determine whether the casual consumer would be likely to be confused.”7 Then, citing a fellow judge’s comments in a hair-product dispute, he quoted: “In expressing my view, I am putting myself in the position of the average person going into the market to purchase a dandruff remover and hair tonic.”

Surveys may no longer be the gold

standard for statistical reliability,

given declining participation rates

of RDD telephone surveys, and the

growth of less easily controlled

on-line technologies.

The paragraphs in the decision concerning marketplace evidence have proven controversial. The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA) issued a respectful statement of disagreement. Judges cannot plausibly put themselves in the shoes of a notional moron in a hurry. “Idiosyncratic knowledge and temperament,” in Justice Rothstein’s words, are fundamental drivers of perceptions, and, according to Kahneman, their influence can barely be detected, let alone excluded. Further, rational analysis by a trier of fact cannot reliably predict how anyone will behave in fleeting or unexpected situations – situations governed by not-always-rational System 1 reasoning. Finally, no one person’s opinion can be guaranteed to approximate the statistical average on any given day – if it were otherwise, then surveys could be replaced by a single random passerby.

The view expressed in Masterpiece – that a single judge might reasonably anticipate the opinions of the broad consumer population – stands in stark contrast to Justice Macfarland’s characterization of such a view as “pure judicial fantasy.”8 In its public statement on Masterpiece, MRIA advised that “direct interviews with consumers or observations of consumer behaviour remain the most statistically reliable source of conclusions about what the relevant consumer population is likely to perceive...”

Surveys may no longer be the gold standard for statistical reliability, given declining participation rates of RDD

telephone surveys, and the growth of less easily controlled on-line technologies. However, as described in an earlier Vue story entitled “A Duck Walking Through the Court of Public Opinion,” other methods of social science have been recruited into action in a broad array of cases to strengthen the validity of survey findings or to provide alternatives to survey evidence altogether. Like surveys, such methods can readily address the Supreme Court’s ultimate criteria for social science evidence of reliability, validity and relevance.

Summary

In summary, while the moron in a hurry may have evolved to an acceptable theoretical construct, there is no single average person for all purposes. Broad statistical capture of public opinion or perception, carried out to scientific standard, has been used to produce the notional average consumer for relevant market contexts. The range of statistical research methods comes with safeguards. By limiting interest to the 95 per cent confidence interval around an average, one can ensure that no extreme case or outlier can pervert the outcome. Courts can also set a minimum level of materiality, a minimum of 15 per cent, say, for a finding of confusion or misleading promotion, before considering that relief is in order. It is implausible, without objective evidence, for any one person to anticipate all the important nuances of how “average” consumers will think and react in the bustle of everyday life. When the application of a law depends on gauging the opinion or perception of the average consumer, statistical evidence would seem indispensable.

1 Newsweek Inc. v. British Broadcasting Corp., [1979] R.P.C. 441 at p. 446.

2 (Apple Corps Limited v. Apple Computer, Inc. [2006] EWHC 996 (Ch)).

3 Walt Disney productions v. Triple Five Corporation (1992) A.R. 321.

4 Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot Ltée, 2006 SCC 23, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 824, para. 20.

5 Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 772 para. 58.

6 The so-called Monty Hall problem is so frequently addressed incorrectly, that dozens of websites have sprung up to explain it. See for example: http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.monty.hall.html, accessed January 11, 2015.

7 Ibid, at para. 92.

8 Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Sunlife Juice Ltd., 22 CPR (3d)

244, 249 (Superior Court of Ontario, 1988).

Ruth M. Corbin is chair of CorbinPartners Inc. and of MRIA’s standards and litigation and regulatory resources portfolios. This paper was inspired by her students in her course Judgment and Decision-Making at Osgoode Hall Law School. She can be reached at rcorbin@corbinpartners.com.

vue | MARCH 2015 21

2015: The Year of Corporate Membership Value

The start of 2015 at the MRIA signifies the swelling wave of positive change, particularly for Corporate Member. Corporate Membership has been completely revamped to ensure that important initiatives such as the Research Registration System (RRS) and the Qualitative Research Registry (QRR) that protect the public are supported by all corporate members. All research organizations can now join the MRIA as Corporate members and for those who want to set themselves apart, the MRIA Gold Seal continues to signify our industry leaders. Gold Seal organizations submit to an audit process that ensures they are upholding the highest standards of market research. Qualifying Gold Seal organizations not only earn the MRIA Gold Seal of distinction they also receive association discounts and other distinctive benefits.

It has been wonderful to see the support for the changes from the membership with well over 95% of Gold Seal Members already renewing their membership. MRIA CEO Kara Mitchelmore has been tirelessly responding to all corporate members who have inquired for more clarity about the changes. While some Basic Corporate members have decided to revert to individual members, the majority of what were formerly Basic Corporate Members are seeing the value in maintaining their Corporate Membership and the importance of supporting the change so that the MRIA can deliver more value to its Corporate Members.

As we commence 2015, the RAC is continuing efforts to revitalize the distinction of the Gold Seal both among its members and with the public. The RAC is also committed to enhancing the value of being part of the MRIA for all Corporate Members. Corporate Membership value is not only what a corporate member receives as a direct benefit for their membership, but also the support the MRIA provides with

regard to training, industry standards and advocacy keeping Canada one of the leading countries for market research in the world.

Over the coming months, RAC will be communicating many of the existing and new benefits associated with corporate membership, and we will be providing many opportunities for Corporate Members to share what they would like to see from the MRIA so that they not only receive value, but they proud to be a member of the MRIA.

New Industry Performance Reporting

Recently MRIA introduced new industry performance reporting that will allow all of our corporate members to get a true barometer as to what is happening in the Canadian Market Research industry. This will allow organizations to identify trends and potential opportunities in the marketplace.

The market research industry has changed a great deal over the past few years from new methodologies to new roles and the time has come to update the information the MRIA collects to track the health and growth of the industry. In addition to the revised annual performance survey, we will be expanding the monthly reporting. In the past this reporting was voluntary and limited to Gold Seal organizations only. To ensure this vital information truly represents our industry in Canada, wider participation is required. As a result, all of our corporate members agencies are now required to participate in both the monthly reporting and the annual performance survey. The process is simple and completely confidential, housed by a secure third party and password protected. All members will be given a secure identifier which they will use to access the portal. Once there they will be asked to fill in 4 fields: • Total revenue for the month• Approximate percentage of work subcontracted

OFF THE RAC

Updates from the MRIA’s Research Agency Council

INDUSTRY NEWS

22 vue | MARCH 2015

• Approximate percentage of total revenue quantitative• Approximate percentage of total revenue qualitative

These results will be tabulated and reported to all members. Corporate members will receive an Executive Summary of the findings. Gold Seal members will receive an expanded version of the current reporting offering additional industry insights.

The annual industry performance survey is currently being revamped to streamline and simplify the process. The survey will be released to the membership in early February. In conjunction with the release of the Survey, the MRIA will be offering webinars and tutorials on how to complete the survey. Results will be presented at the Annual General Meeting on May 26th, 2015.

Exclusive Events & Benefits

Following up on the very successful exclusive Gold Seal Event at the 2014 National Conference in Saskatoon, we are planning to have another event at the National Conference in Toronto. We are also planning an exclusive Speaker’s Event this spring. Stay Tuned!

In addition to these two events, we have the pleasure to announce some additional benefits, exclusive to our Gold Seal Member Research Agencies. As a proud partner of the MRIA, LMS Prolink has been providing Corporate Research Agencies

with customized liability solutions for over 10 years. Gold Seal members receive an additional 10% to 20% discount when they purchase coverage through the customized MRIA liability insurance program. The MRIA program includes:• Professional Liability (known as Errors & Omissions

Liability) covering market research, data collection, analysis and intellectual property claims against member research agencies.

• Commercial General Liability covering operations, offices and events.

• Cyber Liability covering your notification costs, expenses to restore data and loss of business income as a result of a Privacy Breach at your organization.

• Personal Car and Home Insurance plans

For more information, visit http://mria-arim.ca/membership/insurance-programs/researchagencyinsurance or email mria@lms.ca

We look forward to a successful 2015 for our Gold Seal Member Research Agencies.

The MRIA’s Research Agency Council (RAC) is focused on identifying opportunities to increase the visibility, value and importance of the MRIA and support the Gold Seal as our industry’s symbol of best practices. RAC members represent MRIA member suppliers, big and small across Canada.

INDUSTRY NEWS

Carl Johann Roald Hinch was born and raised in Toronto. His father, Frank, was a civil engineer and his mother was a stage actress. His maternal grandfather, C.J. Printz, was the Norwegian Consul in Toronto.

From Lawrence Park Collegiate, Carl joined the Navy as a pilot and trained on the Spitfire overseas, becoming Flight Lieutenant. Once discharged, he joined the 400 Squadron reserve unit while attending the U of T School of Business.

Carl married his high school sweetheart, Peggy Jean MacKay. They raised three children; Stephen, Terry, and Dianne.

One of Carl’s greatest attributes was his relentless positive attitude and optimism. For Carl, each day was a God-given gift to be handled with gratitude and care.

Carl had a passion for life experiences. He flew airplanes well into his 80s. He went skydiving for the first time in his 40s, and hang-gliding in his 50s. He was still water skiing at 82, downhill skiing at 86 and playing tennis until age 90.

In retirement, Carl volunteered with the Ski Hawks Blind Skiers, bussing a group of six blind skiers to Collingwood, helping them ski for the day,

and driving them home again. Carl also enjoyed working as a volunteer at Markham Stouffville Hospital Pharmacy.

Carl was a devoted friend and family man. He designed his life to include annual trips and occasions with his groups of friends and family.

Carl stayed current and formed opinions, primarily about the economy and politics. Even recently, he discussed the advances of nanotechnology and the role of stem cell research in the treatment of dementia.

Carl loved northern Ontario and instilled in his children and grandchildren a high appreciation for the outdoors. He loved the early mornings up north and would rise early to swim in the mirror-like water as the sun came up or launch the canoe to fish while sipping pamplemousse au gin and smoking a fine cigar.

Carl was a traditional gentleman who had a passion for life and a mindful engagement in whatever he was enjoying at the moment. He brought humour, wisdom, insight, and deep love to all his family and friends.

Carl is survived by his wife Peggy, 3 children, 4 grandchildren and his older brother, Val.

Carl Hinch1923-2015

Joined Gruneau Research in 1956Managed and later owned Daniel Starch (Canada) Limited

Formed Canadian Inter-mark Ltd.Served as CAMRO President (1980-1981)

vue | MARCH 2015 23

INDUSTRY NEWS

MRIA National Board of DirectorsElections Open through Electronic Ballot

All members in good standing are encouraged to vote!

In accordance with MRIA’s Bylaws, an election for six (6) At-Large Director positions on the Association’s twelve (12) member National Board of Directors will take place by secret ballot, through electronic mail, from March 2 to April 15 2015. The 2015-17 Board of Directors will take office in conjunction with the Association’s Annual General Meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 2015, in Toronto.

If you are an active member of MRIA and have not received your secure, online ballot, we urge you to get in touch with with Karl MacIsaac, CMRP at kmacisaac@mria-arim.ca. If your membership has lapsed or you wish to join as a new member, visit www.mriaportal.ca

Your participation in this vital Association governance process is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

We recently recorded a State of the Union address, updating our members on our progress towards building the association through strategic objectives. To view the video, visit www.mria-arim.ca

Kara Mitchelmore, MBA, FCMA, CMRP, CEO

Chief Executive Officer, MRIA

kmitchelmore@mria-arim.ca

Office: (416) 642-9793 ext. 8724

Cell: (647) 632-3272

Fax: (416) 644-9793

24 vue | MARCH 2015

Academica GroupAdvanis Inc.Advitek Inc.BBM AnalyticsBBM CanadaCampaign ResearchCanadian Viewpoint Inc.Cido ResearchConsumer Vision Ltd.Corporate Research AssociatesCRC ResearchEKOS Research Associates Inc.Elemental Data Collection Inc.Environics Research Group LimitedForum Research Inc.Fresh Squeezed Ideas

GfK CanadaGreenwich AssociatesHay Research InternationalHead CountInsightrix Research Inc.Ipsos ReidLeger, The Research Intelligence GroupMaritz Research CanadaMarket Probe CanadaMarket Pulse Inc.MBA RechercheMD Analytics Inc.MQO ResearchNanos ResearchNielsen Consumer InsightsNRG Research Group

Opinion Search Inc.PRA Inc.Quorus Consulting Group Inc.R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd.Research DimensionsResearch House Inc.Research NowResearch Strategy Group Inc.SmartPoint Research Inc.Tele-Surveys Plus / Télé-Sondages PlusThe Logit Group Inc.TNS Canada (Canadian Facts)Trend Research Inc.Vision Critical

GOLD SEAL CORPORATE RESEARCH AGENCIES

CORPORATE RESEARCH AGENCIESBureau des Intervieweurs Professionnels Inc.Dialogue Research Inc.Goss Gilroy Inc.Nexus Market Research Inc.

Qualitative Coordination Inc.Quality Response Inc.Trampoline Marketing

GOLD SEAL AGENCY - PENDING Illumina Research Partners

MRIA’s Research Registration System (RRS) has long been a cornerstone self-regulatory mechanism for the marketing, survey and public opinion research and market intelligence industry in Canada.

The following companies have registered research projects with the Research Registration System

Rules of Conduct and Good Practice Effective January 1 2015, MRIA announced that the Association has updated its professional Code of Conduct, to align with the fundamental principles of the International Code on Market and Social Research (the “ESOMAR Code”).

ESOMAR is a worldwide association of research professionals. It promotes standards for research and professional ethics endorsed by members in over 130 countries who share and uphold the conviction that “market research depends for its success on public confidence – that is carried out honestly, objectively and without unwelcome intrusion or disadvantage to its participants.”

MRIA’s Code of Conduct is self-regulatory and intended to reflect the standard of “best practice” in Canada, providing explicit assurance of consumer protection in how the industry interacts with and serves the Canadian public. MRIA’s newly introduced Code of Conduct replaces MRIA’s previous Code of Conduct and Good Practices (dated December, 2007).

RESEARCH REGISTRATION SYSTEMSince 1994, the RRS has allowed respondents to verify the legitimacy of a research project; helped legislators

and regulators differentiate between legitimate survey researchers and unscrupulous telemarketers, phishers and scammers; and protected the industry from unnecessary and unwanted regulation.

http://mria-arim.ca/about-mria/research-registration/research-registration-overview

Combined with other self-regulatory initiatives such as our Code of Conduct and Good Practice and our Charter of Respondent Rights, the RRS has paid huge dividends in protecting the industry’s positive reputation and good name with Canadians.

All Gold Seal and Corporate Research Agency members of the Association are obligated to register all of their research projects with the RRS, and Client-Side Corporate members are encouraged to require their agency suppliers to do so. Starting in 2015, RRS fees are included in MRIA Corporate Membership Fees.

MRIA’s Research Agency Council provides strategic, policy-level oversight of the Research Registration System, and receives aggregate data-only on the System’s performance.

Questions about the Research Registration System should be addressed to Erica Klie, Manager, Member Support Services, at 1-888-602-6742 or (416) 642-9793, ext. 8727 or eklie@mria-arim.ca.

INDUSTRY NEWS

vue | MARCH 2015 25

INDUSTRY NEWS

Quotes to remember

Ray Poynter (Vision Critical):

“When I started in market research, one could conceivably learn everything in market research. Now it is only possible to learn a fraction of current research methodologies.”

Dan Foreman (ESOMAR):

“The horse has already bolted. The scary part is that most of this Iron-man like technology already exists, it’s just not been packaged together”.

Reg Baker (MRII) quoting Albert Einstein:

“If we knew what we were doing, we wouldn’t call it research.”

Corrine Sandler (Fresh Intelligence) paraphrasing Sun Tzu:

“Competition is intensifying today, the only companies that survive are the ones that use intelligence.”

Lenny Murphy (Green Book):

“If it can be automated it will be, if it can be smart and connected it will be.”

The growing use of mobilePoynter explained that research companies are no longer hesitant to interview people on mobile devices, using the example of Pew Research that now targets 65% of their completed telephone surveys be conducted with mobile phone users. Moving to online surveys, Poynter indicates that approximately 30% of people completing online surveys use mobile devices, while only 3% of online surveys are suitable for mobile.

Due to the growing proportion of people using mobile devices, Frances Barlas’ (GFK) presentation suggested that online surveys be designed specifically with mobile in mind. Barlas cited GFK study that found completion rates were considerably higher among mobile users if they were taking part in online surveys that were created for mobile devices. The suggestions provided by Barlas to increase completion rates for mobile devices include: having attributes that are as short as possible, keep grids short and test surveys on a wide range of mobile devices.

A presentation by Cesar Zea (Millward Brown) was about the challenges marketers face in a multiple platform television-viewing world. Zea introduced the definitions of shifting (non-simultaneous acts of television and mobile viewing), meshing (simultaneous use of related content on mobile devices and television) and stacking (simultaneous use of unrelated content). According to Zea meshing is the “holy grail” for marketers, as mobile content is reinforcing what they are watching on a traditional television. Television is where people begin viewing, when stacking, viewers are normally filling in time during commercials, whereas for meshing people are looking at things related to what they are viewing on television, such as actor bios. Zea says the “Net Gain” of the presentation is that brands can enhance their ROI by: knowing your audience, being connected, being concise and relevant and optimizing your creative.

A joint presentation by CBC Researchers Kristin Wozniak and Greg Dinsmore spoke of the challenges of conducting cross-platform research on those consuming television content. The presentation by Wozniak and Dinsmore looked at using Numeris (television viewership measurement) and Adobe SiteCatalyst (online streaming measurement) to try to track total measurement of the Sochi Winter Olympics and the 2014 FIFA World Cup.

Changing how research is conducted

Corrinne Sandler (Fresh Intelligence) spoke of the importance that researchers use automation in creating research results.

26 vue | MARCH 2015

INDUSTRY NEWSINDUSTRY NEWS

According to Sandler research is behind many other industries that use extensive use of technology, such as the ability to by contact lenses quickly and cheaply online instead of going to an optometrist. She turned the “price, quality and speed, choose two” quote on its head, by arguing that with automation, all three were possible and are currently expected in the marketplace. Sandler used an example of conducting a project for Nestle that was turned around in five days, and provided easy to digest deliverables for a low cost.

Joel Rubinson (Rubinson Partners) talked about the problem of market research essentially not changing, when we are now in a “Digital, Social and Mobile Age”. In this age brand building has changed: we live in a push-pull media world where we are constantly shopping online for recreation; brands need to become media to interact with their clients, and many companies have moved from the 60s “Mad Men” to the current “Math Men” age, where digital ad placements are determined by algorithms. To close this gap Rubinson suggested the following steps: adding digital metrics to your dashboard, stop treating social media like a hobby and bring in data you can’t get from a survey that has action value.

Dan Foreman (ESOMAR) spoke about the future of the global market research industry. Considerable year-over-year growth is taking place in developing countries such as Myanmar (+50%), Lebannon (+38%), Bangladesh (28%), Argentina (+20%) and Peru (16%). Due to modest changes in many developed countries, the projected growth forecast for the industry is 3-4% globally. In absolute terms, the industry totals U.S. $61.5 billion, which is an amount similar to the electronic gaming industry.

In his presentation Lenny Murphy spoke of the “revolution” that is currently taking place in research. According to Murphy changes in consumer behaviour are causing changes in what research clients are expecting. In some cases they are even moving away from traditional market research suppliers, as the amount of money spent on insights is growing overall, while the proportion spent with market research firms is decreasing. Market research firms face future competition from Google, IBM, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, GE, media conglomerates and telecommunications companies who all collect customer data and resell it.

Murphy placed timelines on the following: DIY (currently taking place), non-conscious measurement (next 18 months), Automation and Artificial Intelligence (18-24 months), Internet of things (24-36 months) and Virtual and augmented reality (36-48 months.

Prediction ScienceJon Puleston (Lightspeed-GMI) spoke on the accuracy of using predictions in market research. In studies that Puleston conducted he determined that people were more likely to give accurate answers when they were placed in simulated situations in which they “bet” on the accuracy of the answers they gave when asked to provide an answer, so that respondents had “skin in the game”. Further, Puleston indicated that allowing respondents to determine how much they would “bet” on their answer acted as a proxy as how confident their answer was correct.

Unlike most other quantitative forms of market research, more is not better with respect to sample size, with the optimal sample size being 16. According to Puleston a prediction is based on two components: information and error, so if each individual is answering in a non-biased manner, the overall average of response should even out any error.

Education, future entrants to the profession and skills neededIn his second presentation Dan Foreman revealed that the most recent ESOMAR Talent Survey indicated that only 14% of respondents actively chose market research as a profession, meaning that the profession has to do a better job of attracting students. His suggestions included: developing role models and industry mentorship, promoting the impact of research, working with post-secondary institutions and creating better structured career paths.

Reg Baker (MRII) warned that current market research education is too focused on training people to do certain things, but not on teaching them basic principles of market research that would help learning across all methodologies He further posited that the three type of people needed in the future would be: specialists, business consultants who could talk strategy and polymaths who can look at problems at figure out the best way to solve it.

Both Stephen Popiel (GFK) and Reg Baker spoke of the impossibility for market research education to be provided adequately by one provider, and instead mentioned educational institutions, market research industry organizations and market research firms could all play a role. Stephen also spoke of a challenge that researchers facing in learning the industries their clients are in. Stephen suggested that while market research bodies cannot be expected to teach researchers different industries, they might want to consider teaching researchers how to become consultants.

To read the entire article on Net Gain 2015 click here. Recordings are also available for sale at http://mria.sclivelearningcenter.com

vue | MARCH 2015 27

INDUSTRY NEWS

It’s been a long and miserable winter here in [Ottawa — the coldest in our history!]. Perhaps if my vision wasn’t so obstructed by my tuque, the dense white clouds escaping my mouth, and the icicles hanging like stalactites from my eyelashes, I might be able to see the light at the end of this wintery tunnel.

If there was, however, one upside to this inclement weather, it was the realization that there still exists an impressive cohort of people that refuse to give up on logic, reasoning and data and the role they play in decision-making. Yes, I’m talking about reinstating the long form mandatory census.

One of the key catalysts for this groundswell of hope was Ted Hsu, the backbencher Liberal MP for Kingston, Ontario. In September, Hsu tabled private member’s bill C-626, An Act to amend the Statistics Act, whose objective was to revive the long form questionnaire.

Ted Hsu understands data. A Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University, he’s published 25 physics papers. After that he worked as a trader and financial manager in Paris, Philadelphia, and Tokyo. Surely, Hsu’s take-away from working in these two very diverse fields was that good decision-making requires information, data and evidence to ensure the thought-process is well grounded and defendable.

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said of the “thought-process” on Parliament Hill nowadays, where data and evidence don’t play the critical role they used to. Sound decision-making certainly wasn’t in evidence this February when a majority in the House of Commons voted down Bill C-626 during Second Reading, despite the fact that it had the support of an impressive list of Canada’s “who’s who” – from doctors, business groups, former senior bureaucrats, municipal and provincial leaders, realtors, scientists, statisticians, think tanks, sociologists – and of course, pollsters.

To Ted Hsu’s credit, I’m sure he knew the Bill would never pass. As a physicist, he could count the votes and do the math. How could one expect logic to prevail with Bill C-626 when the very decision it was trying to overturn was based on ideological considerations rather than any evidence that could justify the cancellation of the long form in the first place?

That said, I suspect Hsu’s Bill accomplished exactly what he was hoping it would do – to bring renewed attention to the shortcomings of the National Household Survey (NHS), the voluntary questionnaire which replaced the mandatory census.

The overall national response rate to the voluntary NHS

in 2011 was 68%, down from 94% when the questionnaire was mandatory. And the response rate for the NHS varied so widely across the country that StatsCan was forced to recognize the reduced accuracy of its dataset and limit the amount of data published for various standard geographic areas. Some of StatsCan’s releases even had disclaimers advising “users to exercise caution” when using their data, making the NHS sound like a hazardous chemical substance rather than a policy tool!

Two important strengths of the long form census were that it provided data at a small area level (small communities and neighbourhoods in urban areas) and that it allowed for tracking change over time.

Yet this time around, several small communities had no data available from the NHS. There were also no data published for census dissemination areas, a fundamental building block for creating trade or other service areas. Even for large municipalities there was a dramatic cutback in the amount of detailed data made available.

In fact, many businesses and other organizations that had depended on the census for many years have virtually all have concluded that the NHS data can’t be considered reliable for many applications, in particular for tracking change over time and for profiling the population of small communities and neighborhoods. The use of data to profile neighbourhoods is particularly important for many businesses that need to understand the changing nature of the trade area that a business location serves or might expand to. The lack of this information has meant that business plans get based on outdated or anecdotal information that might lead to less than optimal business decisions (Hello Target?).

More generally, the lack of accurate data from the NHS has meant a lack of evidence on trends on many of today’s important public policy issues including immigration, labour market planning, and poverty reduction.

So what now? StatsCan is gearing up for the 2016 census. With Bill C-626 dead in the water, and true evidence to discredit the value of the NHS, one has to wonder if it’s worth the bother – let alone the several millions it will cost Canadians to conduct the census.

As for Ted Hsu, he’s given up on Parliament, and will take his leave after the closing of this session. We wish him the best in his new endeavours and thank him for bringing a renewed attention to the importance of logic, evidence and data.

Governance Greg Jodouin, MRIA’s Government Relations Consultant

Another Kick at the Can

28 vue | MARCH 2015

INDUSTRY NEWSINDUSTRY NEWS

THE FIVE PATHWAYS

POST GRADUATE

HOW’S THE VIEW FROM YOUR CUBICLE?

This certification pathway is designed to build a solid foundation of professional competence by raising the bar for new practitioners. In addition to two years of industry experience, we are providing Mentor support by leading CMRPs (in person and online) to enhance industry knowledge and deepen the candidates’ overall understanding of MR while preparing for the CMRE exam. Mentors are provided at no cost to the incumbents and represent some of our industry’s thought leaders. This is a unique and valuable opportunity opportunity to pursue your CMRP.

You will be learning from the best and

getting a better view!

MRIA COURSES PATHWAY

JUST LOVE TO LEARN?

You’ve graduated from University and have developed a distinct taste for marketing research. You miss the thrill of learning and the challenge of proving your abilities. If your eye is on the future, then this path is for you, as the traditional, tried and true way to obtaining certification, and with a touch of flexibility. It requires completion of MRIA’s 12 Core Courses, combined with experience and the added help of a Mentor which we provide at no charge.

We’ve got the courses so bring us your mind!

CHALLENGE THE CMRE EXAM

GOT WHAT IT TAKES?

You’ve been around the block and have seen some dramatic changes to marketing research in your six years in the biz. You’re good at what you do; even your boss says so. You live on the edge and are not at all interested in reading volumes about research methodology. We get it. You can prove your mettle by telling us about your experience and writing the CMRE exam. Period.

We know you’ve got what it takes!

EXPERIENCED PRACTITIONER

SOME DAYS YOU CAN TOUCH THE SKY!

You are the one that comes to mind when people talk about experts in marketing research. With more than ten exciting years in the market research field, you are the ‘go to’ person when questions arise on ethics or polling or margins of error. Task forces and boards of directors seek your participation and opinion. Even other CMRPs will vouch for your expertise and would applaud your continued success as a CMRP. We can get you there in a few short steps.

Get the recognition you deserve!

CMRP EXECUTIVE RETREAT

REALLY? YOU’RE NOT A CMRP?

It’s called respect. Ask any client who one of the top thought leaders in MR is, and your name comes up. You are seen at high level meetings, in the media, and at MRIA policy meetings. Often called to speak at events, your international schedule is jam packed. Google your name and many pages appear…..

Any time spent feeding your mind can only be spent with the very best - industry thought leaders, innovators, movers and shakers. Learning about advances in leadership is always welcome. Hearing about innovations from your peers can be priceless.

CMRP – be known for what you know!

Continuous learning is the new standard – let us help you expand your knowledge base and reach outside of your comfort zone.

Certification is a way to measure the competency of individuals within our industry, based on both a certification evaluation and the practical application of marketing research competencies. Our well-known Certified Marketing Research Professional (CMRP) designation helps to ensure professional competence while enhancing the prestige of our profession by raising standards.

Pat

h

Pat

h

Pat

h

Pat

h

Pat

h1 2 3 4 5

In March 2015, MRIA announced 17(!) new CMRPs who followed the new Pathways (refer to the list on the facing page)

Institute for Professional Development

http://mria-arim.ca/education/cmrp-certification/cmrp-overview

For more information, visit our website or write Karl MacIsaac, CMRP at kmacisaac@mria-arim.ca or Dan Jackson, CMRP at djackson@mria-arim.ca

The next CMRE Prep Course will take place in person and via simulcast, on September 30 - October 1, 2015.

Look for our 2015–2016 Course Calendar – coming SOON!

vue | MARCH 2015 29

INDUSTRY NEWS

MRIA INSTITUTE FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTINSTITUT DE DÉVELOPPEMENT PROFESSIONNEL DE L’ARIM

Join us for the CMRP Awards Ceremony, taking place on Monday, May 25, 2015 at 7.30pm at the Marriott Eaton Centre, Toronto, as part of the Gala Awards Dinner at the 2015 National Conference.

For more information on attaining the CMRP designation and for a complete list of all MRIA CMRPs, visithttp://mria-arim.ca/directories/cmrp-designated-members

Pour obtenir plus de renseignements sur la désignation de PARM et pour obtenir une listecomplète de tous les PARM de l’ARIM, visitez le site http://mria-arim.ca/directories/cmrp-designated-members

Zeynep Aydin, CMRPConsultantKantar Salim Barghouth, CMRPSenior Communications AdvisorEnvironment Canada Phyllis Beckford, CMRPDirector, Business IntelligenceHudson’s Bay Company Erin Brown, MBA, CMRPResearch AssociateCorporate Research Associates

Louis Dutaud, CMRPSenior Research AnalystGfK Canada

Lynne Gillis, CMRPSenior Research AnalystCorporate Research Associates

Dan Jackson, CMRPMember Development OfficerMRIA

Ling (Lynn) Li, CMRPResearch ManagerMcCain Foods Karl MacIsaac, CMRP Social Media CoordinatorMRIA

Kara Mitchelmore, MBA, FCMA, CMRPChief Executive OfficerMRIA Denver Redman, CMRPSenior Client AdvocateEnvironics Analytics Samantha Robinson, CMRPProject Manager – Digital ServicesEnvironics Research Group Christine Snook, CMRPSelf Employed Charlotte Tonge, CMRPResearch AnalystCorporate Research Associates

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE NEW CMRPs OF THE 2015 WINTER SESSION!FÉLICITATIONS AUX NOUVEAUX PARM DE 2015!

Successful Completion of Pathways 1, 2 or 3

Successful Completion of Pathway 4 - Experienced PractitionerDouglas Anderson, CMRPPrincipalThe Earnscliffe Strategy Group

Stephanie Constable, CMRPPrincipalThe Earnscliffe Strategy Group

Rick Nadeau, CMRPPresidentQuorus Consulting Group Inc.

30 vue | MARCH 2015

PLACE THIS IN APRIL VUE

Ruth Corbin, CMRPCorbinPartners Inc.

Dear Dr. RuthI read with interest the article “What’s the Name of the Claim” in the October edition of the Vue magazine, and the questions it answers have led to more questions.

Consider the following scenario: a client company named “Jupiter” sells many cosmetic products. My company conducted a robust, statistically valid survey among front-line cosmeticians to try and get an overall “Number one recommended brand”. Jupiter won!

My questions:1. Can Jupiter apply this result to

every one of its cosmetics products? For example, if it is conducting a campaign for skin moisturizer, can it claim its skin moisturizer is the number one recommended brand?

2. Suppose we go back into the field, and get additional results for skin moisturizer specifically, and then (suppose) Jupiter improves the product even more. Can Jupiter then use the previous research to claim that its new product is “number one recommended”? After all, something better than “number one” must be the new number one, right?

3. Third scenario: Jupiter decides to introduce a men’s skin moisturizer, which is very similar to the women’s product but with different packaging. Can Jupiter rely on the “number one recommended” result for the women’s product to claim the same for the men’s product? After all, it is pretty much the same product with the same quality ingredients.

Thank you, I’ll look for your answer in Vue.

Save-your-skin Sam

Dear Sam:These are perfect questions for understanding what the fuss is about when it comes to claims research.

Speaking strictly, claims should be based on the specific wording of the endorsement that was put to research respondents. If cosmeticians chose Jupiter as the “number one recommended brand for cosmetics” then the claim should normally be restricted to “number one recommended brand for cosmetics.” I know, I know, those who studied Formal Logic in undergraduate math or philosophy courses want to reply “but skin moisturizer is a cosmetic, ergo, the research results apply to skin moisturizer.” However formal logic does not always predict how people think and perceive; perceptions depend on frame of mind and context. For example, a survey respondent may have thought “well, not all of Jupiter’s products are best, but overall, they have the best line.” Given that that argument may well be raised by an opponent in challenging Jupiter’s claim, Jupiter would be best off to particularize the market research to skin moisturizer, if it wants to make a specific claim about skin moisturizer.

If Jupiter then changes its product – even making changes it believes to

be improvements – the old research is obsolete. There is case law on this point. Other manufacturers may also have changed their products in the meantime. Jupiter can’t be sure whether cosmeticians will agree that its altered product remains “number one.”

Now for Jupiter’s new male audience. The product is a new one. Its new packaging may change the perceived benefit. Responding cosmeticians may have believed the survey was asking about product lines for women. You can see many reasons why new research may be required for a claim to be made to men.

That’s it, for the space that your Vue Editor already generously allots for this column. This reply is meant for readers’ general perspective; the best option for a non-fictional company will depend on its specific fact situation. Thanks for writing in – your client is fortunate to have a thinking, proactive advisor like yourself.

D.R.

Please submit your forensic research and standards questions to rcorbin@corbinpartners.com or anonymously via the MRIA blog, https://mriablog.wordpress.com/ask-dr-ruth/.

Ask Dr. RuthC

OLU

MN

ISTS

vue | MARCH 2015 31

Perspectives on Polling

Can election polls really be that certain? Probability is better than certainty when estimating voting behaviour.As a public pollster, I often get asked, “Why were the polls so wrong?” Ignoring the fact that polls are snapshots in time and voters can change their preferences quickly in the heat of an election campaign, why is it that everyone outside our industry has come to expect that polls can always estimate elections within one or two points?

One of the reasons that we often get “blamed” for “bad election predictions” is because we encourage this perception by focusing almost exclusively on the top line numbers our surveys produce.

Take for example the recent provincial by-election in the Ontario electoral district of Sudbury. Three polling firms were active in the election releasing a number of polls throughout the campaign (Forum Research, Oraclepoll Research, and Mainstreet Technologies). The table

below reports the final estimates of the firms along with the final election results.

If we judge the three firms based solely on their final estimates, we might conclude that none of them did particularly well. Yes two “predicted” the winner but none of them were close in estimating the final results for each of the candidates.

Mainstreet Technologies and Forum Research both underestimated the Liberal vote while Oraclepoll Research underestimated the NDP

David ColettoAbacus Data

CO

LUM

NISTS

Firm Field Sample Method Ontario Ontario Independent Ontario Ontario Date(s) Size Liberal NDP PC Greens

Mainstreet Technologies

Forum Research

Oraclepoll Research

Feb 2

Feb 2

Jan 28 - 31

882

469

400

IVR

IVR

CATI

37%

33%

41%

41%

32%

36%

26%

35%

16%

14%

19%

12%

10%

11%

11%

8%

4%

6%

4%

3%

Final Poll Results by FirmSudbury Provincial By-Election, February 5, 2015

Election Results

vote and overestimated the support of the independent candidate running the election.

But should accuracy of the top line numbers be the metric we judge the quality of publicly released polls? Mainstreet Technologies showed a close race, with the Liberals slightly ahead. Forum Research found tight race with the NDP slightly ahead, while Oraclepoll found a large Liberal lead. Three polls, three different predictions right?

What if these polls were actually telling us the same thing?

Taking into account each survey’s sample size and the estimates of the top two parties, we can estimate the probability that the Liberals were leading the NDP for each poll. For the Oraclepoll and Mainstreet

Technologies surveys, the probability of a Liberal lead was 100% and 93% respectively. For the Forum Research poll, even though it found the NDP with a 3-point lead, there was a one in four chance that the Liberals were actually in the lead based on the sample size of the survey. Within a 95% confidence interval, the Liberals could have actually been leading by as much as 6-points – the actual margin of the election.

One could argue that all three polls did a good job reflecting the likely preferences of voters in Sudbury. While Mainstreet Technologies and Oraclepoll were more certain of a Liberal win, the Forum Research poll also offered a Liberal win of as much as six as a possibility.

The lesson here is that as researchers trying to describe the preferences of a population, it’s always better to err on the side of caution and probability rather than certainty. Even though the top line numbers suggest one thing, probability theory tell us there’s a chance that something else could happen.

As researchers, we will never build confidence in our work if we let those who consume our research assume that our results are perfect estimations of the population. Focusing on probability as opposed to certainty is a more responsible approach for a public opinion researcher.

32 vue | MARCH 2015

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH REGISTRYIn accordance with federal privacy laws, MRIA’s Qualitative Research Registry (QRR), or Registre de la recherche qualitative (RRQ) in French, was created to provide an ongoing, user-friendly vehicle for tracking those who do not want to be contacted or should not be contacted for qualitative research studies.

Rules of Conduct and Good PracticeEffective January 1 2015, MRIA announced that the Association has updated its professional Code of Conduct, to align with the fundamental principles of the International Code on Market and Social Research (the “ESOMAR Code”).

ESOMAR is a worldwide association of research professionals. It promotes standards for research and professional ethics endorsed by members in over 130 countries who share and uphold the conviction that “market research depends for its success on public confidence – that is carried out honestly, objectively and without unwelcome intrusion or disadvantage to its participants.”

MRIA’s Code of Conduct is self-regulatory and intended to reflect the standard of “best practice” in Canada, providing explicit assurance of consumer protection in how the industry interacts with and serves the Canadian public. MRIA’s newly introduced Code of Conduct replaces MRIA’s previous Code of Conduct and Good Practices (dated December, 2007).

THE FOLLOWING CORPORATE MEMBERS HAVE SUBMITTED NAMES TO QUALITATIVE RESEARCH REGISTRY

Research House Inc.Quality Response Inc.Opinion Search Inc.I & S RecruitingDawn Smith Field Management ServiceConsumer Vision Ltd.Barbara C. Campbell Recruiting Inc. (BCCR Inc.)

MBA Recherche

Trend Research Inc.Barbara C. Campbell Recruiting Inc. (BCCR Inc.)

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

WEST

QRR is a comprehensive do not call list of those who have recently participated in qualitative research studies, those who have asked not to be contacted further, and those felt by recruiters and moderators to be best served by not being contacted. These respondents are marked as “do not call” in accordance with established MRIA Standards.

All field and full-service companies are encouraged to submit a list of their qualitative respondents for entry into the QRR system each month, including those who do not wish to be contacted.

Participating firms will receive monthly updates of respondents to be screened from qualitative recruitment samples. QRR works effectively to increase the quality and integrity of the qualitative research process, by serving as a control to ensure respondents are not contacted more frequently than is necessary.

However, the ability of the system to function effectively is directly related to the co-operation received from firms who provide recruitment services. If you are a full service research firm or field supplier that is currently participating in the Qualitative Research Registry program – thank you very much and keep up the good work!

If you are not currently participating, please get involved! If you are interested in submitting to QRR, please visit the MRIA website at http://mria-arim.ca/about-mria/qualitative-research-division/qualitative-research-registry for further explanation and guidance on how to submit qualitative research participants’ names, along with the required electronic forms.

If you have any questions about or wish to submit to the QRR please send an e-mail to: qrr@mria-arim.ca

Information regarding the QRR can be found at http://mria-arim.ca/about-mria/qualitative-research-division/qualitative-research-registry

Starting in 2015, all QRR fees are included in MRIA’s Corporate Membership Fees. To view the fee scale, visit

http://mria-arim.ca/membership/join-mria/corporate-memberships/corporate-dues-fees

INDUSTRY NEWS