CLIENT-MARKETING RESEARCH FIRM RELATIONSHIP STUDY, 1989
An Honors Thesis (ID 499)
by
Susan K. Kuehl
~
~esis
Director
~
~~
"~-v-,~~.
Dr. ~eph D. Brown
-
-~ "
Ball State University
Muncie, Indiana
May 6, 1989
Expected date of graduation
May 6, 1989
5p&\1
\he~:..AS
l-D ,. .
9Ltb'1
-
~zA
\ '1S'~t
I.
-
--
TABLE OF CONTENTS
" \<. 'bc.t
Introduction
1
II.
Summary
2-3
III.
Method
4-5
IV.
Results
6-45
I.
INTRODUCTION
This report contains results from a survey of marketing research
agencies and clients of marketing research agencies.
This survey
was conducted to determine the basis for good client-research agency
relationships.
The objectives of the study are as follows:
1.
to determine the relative importance of research firm
characteristics
2.
to determine the importance of research firm performance
areas
3.
to determine the client and agency evaluation of research
firm performance in key areas
4.
to determine the client and agency evaluation of client
support activities
5.
to determine the overall satisfaction of clients and research
firms with each other
Of the 800 surveys sent, 160 were returned, 70 from the clients
and 90 from the research firms.
The questionnaires covered the
following areas for comparison in this study:
Demographics
Importance of research firm characteristics
Importance of research firm performance areas
Client evaluation of research firm performance
Overall evaluation of research firm
Evaluation of client support activities
-
2
II.
SUMMARY
1.
Of the ninety marketing research firms surveyed, the highest
percentag of both field and full service firms felt that high
quality work done is the most important research firm characteristic. Also, the highest percentage of the seventy clients
surveyed felt that quality work is the most important characteristic in a research firm.
2.
The most important research firm performance area as judged by
percentage responding was quality of work done. This response
came from the clients (vice presidents of marketing and directors
of marketing research). Full service research firms felt that
qualifications to do the job is most important, and field service
research firms felt that references from past work done is the
most important performance area.
3.
Vice presidents of marketing gave the best performance rating
to the research firm's nationwide ability to do research. Directors
of marketing research gave the highest performance rating to the
quality of work done. Both full and field service research firms
agreed that the best performance rating of research firms is
the quality of work done.
4.
Overall, the research firms felt that quality work is the area
used most to evaluate and qualify a research firm. The clients
feel that quality work is the most important characteristic, but
gave varied responses when asked to evaluate their firm's performance.
5.
The biggest problem area for research firm performance according
to vice presidents of marketing is that the firm did not know
what to do with the information given and that the firm was not
qualified to do the job requested. Directors of marketing research
felt that the location of the firm was the biggest problem.
Both full and field service firms felt that the belief of sharing
client's name was the biggest problem. However, it should be
noted that a problem was rated as a three on a scale of one to
ten with ten being the biggest problem.
6.
Overall, all participating in the survey are satisfied with their
research firms and feel that the opposite is also satisfied.
7.
Both groups of clients feel that clients perform the best when
sharing specific questions which must be answered by the project.
Both groups of research firms feel that the client performs the
best in the category of being readily accessible to answer
questions while working on the project.
8.
Those clients who felt that timeliness in getting research done
and credentials/reputation of the research firm are extremely
important also gave their research firm an excellent rating on
their ability to carryon a smooth running relationship.
3
-
-
9.
Field service research firms who gave an extremely important
rating to carrying on a smooth running relationship with the
client, willingness to receive client input, and enthusiasm
about the job, also gave an excellent rating on their own ability
to carryon a smooth running relationship.
10.
Those full service research firms who gave an extremely important
rating to flexibility in style of doing research, nationwide
ability to do research, references from past clients, carrying
on a smooth running relationship with the client, and willingness
to receive client input, also gave themselves an excellent
evaluation on their ability to carryon a smooth running relationship with the client.
11.
All categories that were significant are listed in the tables.
All areas are positively related.
12.
In the table comparing performance ratings with level of satisfaction, all areas, even the poor performance ratings, coorespond
to a well or extremely well rating when asked the level of
satisfaction. (excluding quality of work done on the client table).
4
,-
III.
METHOD
This study began with an in-depth library search to find any
previous research done on client-research agency relationships.
Also, articles dealing with the relationship between clients and
advertising agencies were studied because of the similar nature of
business.
Little was found dealing with marketing research companies.
This gave evidence that more research into the basis for a compatible
relationship between clients and their research agency was necessary.
In order to obtain more knowledge upon which to base the study,
several personal interviews were conducted with players in the
industry.
Clients of research agencies were asked what they like
and dislike about their current marketing research agency.
-
Also,
they were asked what they look for when choosing a research agency,
and the relative importance of the criterea that they listed.
They
were also asked if they were satisfied with the performance of their
research firm and if their research firm felt the same.
The research firms were asked whtat they felt their clients
like and dislike about their firm.
They were asked what they felt
clients search for when selecting a research firm and what the
relative importance of those listed were.
They were also asked how
well they felt they satisfied their customers, and how their customers
would respond if asked how well they were satisfied witht heir firm's
performance.
From this information, a questionnaire was designed.
It was
sent to 400 clients (200 vice presidents of marketing and 200
-
directors of marketing research) across the country.
Their names
were randomly obtained from the American Marketing Association
5
-
International Directory and Marketing Services Guide.
The same
questionnaire tailored to research firms was sent to 400 research
firms.
The 400 was broken into 200 field service firms and 200 full
service research firms.
The names of the full service research firms
were taken from the AM! International Membership Directory and Marketing Services Guide.
The names of the field service research firms
were obtained from the Marketing Research Association, Inc. Membership Roster.
Seventy surveys were returned by the clients, and ninety were
returned by the research agencies.
The responses were tabulated
and are recorded in the frequency tables.
crosstabulated.
into tables.
Also, the surveys were
Those results of significance have been compiled
6
IV.
RESULTS
The results are presented for each major area of the questionnaire starting with the classificaiton of clients.
A.
Classification of Clients
Table 1 contains characteristics of the 70 clients surveyed.
Table 1
CLASSIFICATION OF CLIENTS
1989 Responses of V.P. of Marketing & Directors of Marketing Research
Question
Percentage
V.P.
Dir. of Mktg.
When buying research services,
do you primarily use full service
or field service research firms?
full service research firm
filed service research firm
79
68
21
100
100
32
Do you have an in-house marketing
research department?
yes
no
79
94
21
100
100
20
20
15
20
25
100
8
10
12
12
58
100
6
What is the amount of your annual
marketing research budget?
under $50,000
$50,000-99,999
$100,000-249,999
$250,000-499,999
over $500,000
Your firm's marketing area is:
local
regional
national
-
What kind of facilities does your
research firm utilize when working
on your projects?
5
25
70
100
4
20
76
100
7
A.
Classification of Clients, cont'd.
Table 1
CLASSIFICATION OF CLIENTS
1989 Responses of V.P. of Marketing & Directors of Marketing Research
Question
Percentage
V.P.
Dir. of Mktg.
85
85
80
80
70
40
40
40
56
64
86
82
48
72
30
78
data interpretation and
report writing
data analysis
telephone banks
data processing
project planning
mall intercept
in-house focus group monitor
focus group facility
0-24%
,-
25-49%
50-74%
75-100%
Avg. rtg. -;:-
VP
Dir
VP
Dir
VP
Dir
VP
Dir
VP
12
76
24
62
6
6
4
10
6
6
6
2
76
12
66
26
3.5 3.1
1.5 1.9
10
80
18
64
0
5
10
2
10
5
6
16
80
10
66
18
3.6 3.2
1.5 1.9
Dir
What percentage of your
research projects are performed
by:
full service rsch. firm
field service rsch. firm
What percentage of your work
done with research firms is
done on a project-by-project
basis as compared to an on-going
long term relationship basis
with specific firms?
project-by-project
relationship
*Computed where:
1
0-24%
2
25-49%
50-74%
3
4
75-100%
-
8
-
B.
Classification of Research Firms
Table 2 contains characteristics of the 90 research firms surveyed.
Table 2
CLASSIFICATION OF RESEARCH FIRMS
1989 Responses of Full & Field Service Research Firms
Question
Percentage
Are you primarily a field or
full service research firm?
full service
field service
58
42
100
If you are primarily full
service, do you have an inhouse field research department?
yes
no
-
What are your annual research
billings?
less than $250,000
$250,000-499,999
$500,000-999,999
$1,000,000-4,999,999
$5,000,000-7,999,999
$8,000,000-14,999,999
over $15,000,000
79
21
100
Full svs.
Field svs.
8
16
14
14
16
24
34
43
o
4
8
16
100
100
96
40
96
42
3
o
What kind of facilities/
services do you offer?
-
data analysis
data interpretation &
report writing
project planning
data processing
telephone banks
in-house focus group monitor
focus group facility
mall intercept
92
87
77
75
67
54
26
40
82
47
79
71
9
-
B.
Classification of Research Firms, Cont'd.
Table 2
CLASSIFICATION OF RESEARCH FIRMS
1989 Responses of Full & Field Service Research Firms
Question
0-24%
25-49%
Full Fld. Full Fld.
What proportion of
your work done in
the last year has
been with each of
these two types of
peopl?
those in
research
21
those strictly
in marketing40
-.
50-74%
75-100%
Avg. rtg.*
Full Fld.
Full Fld.
Full Fld.
8
12
8
23
11
44
74
2.9
3.5
74
17
3
23
13
20
10
2.2
1.6
66
84
13
12
25
17
13
10
8
15
17
25
16
3
39
6
4
31
5
3
40
1.6
1.7
2.6
1.6
1.2
3.1
11
38
17
14
16
22
23
25
30
27
48
15
43
13
3.1
2.1
3.1
2.2
What percentage of
your clients are ...
local?
regional?
national?
67
54
27
What percentage of
your work is done
on a project-byproject basis as
compared to an ongoing long term
relationship basis
with specific clients?
project-byproject
relationship
-
*Computed where:
1
0-24%
2
25-49%
3
50-74%
4
75-100%
12
46
10
-
C.
Importance of Research Firm Characteristics
Table 3 shows the degree of importance that each area holds
to the client when choosing a research firm.
Table 3
IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH FIRM CHARACTERISTICS
1989 Responses from V.P. of Marketing and-Directors of Marketing Research
Importance and Title
Question
average ~­
not
extremely
important important importnat
rating
VP Dir.
VP Dir.
VP Dir.
VP Dir.
---------------- percentage ------------------
When choosing a research
firm, how important do you
feel are the following
criteria to you?
-
firm does high quality
work
0
o 10 12
88
90
2.9 2.9
firm has high credentials/
reputation
5
40
10
50
40
2.5 2.3
55
research firm has had
past experience in
client's industry 15
48
45
34
40
18
2.3 1.7
the timeliness of the
firm in getting
the project done
10
32
6
60
62
2.2 2.6
30
firm has enthusiasm
30
38
30
36
26
40
2.1 1.9
firm has had good
references from
past clients
30
35
36
38
26
35
2.1 1.9
firm has used info.
given to make a
proposal
48
46
26
26
28
26
1.8 1.8
the price of firm's
services
40
32
50
48
10
20
1.7 1.9
firm has spent time
researching the
client's company
70
80
20
12
10
8
1.4 1.3
the location of firm
70
63
25
23
14
5
1.4 1.3
firm has resources/
facilities available in all areas 75
74
15
18
8
10
1.4 1.3
firm suggests new rsch.
to be done
75
63
20
29
5
8
1.3 1.4
*Computed where:
3
extremely important ( a rating of 9 or 10 on a 1-10 scale)
2
important ( a rating of 7 or 8 on a 1-10 scale)
1
not important ( a rating of 6 or below on a 1-10 scale)
11
-
C. Importance of Research Firm Characteristics
Table 4 shows the degree of importance that the research firm
feels that each areas holds to the client when choosing a research firm.
Table 4
IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH FIRM CHARACTERISTICS
1989 Responses from Field & Full Service Research Firms
not
important
Question
Important and Firm
extremely
important important
average *
rating
Full Fld. Full Fld. Full Fld. Full Fld.
--------------- percentage ----------------
When choosing a full svs.
research firm, how important do you feel the following criteria are to the
client?
firm does high quality work12
firm has high credentials/
reputation
11
the timeliness of the firm
in getting the project
done
8
research firm has had past
experience in the
client's industry
21
the price of firm's svs.
25
firm has had good references
from past clients
37
firm has enthusiasm
35
firm has used info. given
to make a proposal
46
firm has resources.facilities in all areas
65
the location of the firm
61
firm suggests new rsch.
to do for the client 63
firm has spent time researching the client's
company
71
-
o
19
14
69
86
2.6
2.9
6
33
26
56
68
2.4
2.6
14
59
32
33
54
2.3
2.4
49
29
44
44
20
31
35
31
31
40
2.1
2.1
1.8
2.1
3
28
37
45
43
29
26
20
54
43
1.9
1.8
2.5
2.1
37
40
26
14
37
1.7
2.0
67
62
23
15
32
12
18
33
6
6
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.4
45
31
49
6
6
1.4
1.6
52
23
33
6
15
1.4
1.6
*Computed where:
3
extremely important (a rating of 9 or 10 on a 1-10 scale)
2
important ( a rating of 7 or 8 on a 1-10 scale)
1
not important ( a rating of 6 or below on a 1-10 scale)
12
-
D.
Importance of Research Firm Performance Areas
Table 5 shows the degree of importance of research firm perform-
ance areas to the client in maintaining good client-research agency
relations.
not
important
Question
VP
Dir.
Importance and Title
extremely
important important
VP
Dir.
VP
Dir.
average
rating
VP
Dir.
------------- percentage --------------
In your oplnlon, how important are these areas to maintaining good client-agency
relations?
quality of work done
0
qualified to do job
0
proper use of info.
5
help in analyzing problem
10
informing client of things
to come (no surprises)
15
providing interpretations of
rsch. results
10
communication between client
and agency
16
familiar w/ client's market
10
willingness to receive client
input
5
timeliness in getting rsch.dbne5
credentials/reputation
16
enthusiasm about job
26
carrying on smooth relationship
16
flexibility in rsch. style
16
references from past clents
42
nationwide ability to do
research
47
not sharing client's name
61
suggest new rsch. to do
63
scope of the firm
61
location of tile firm
74
0
2
6
27
5
5
26
20
6
22
25
31
95
95
69
70
94
76
69
42
3.0
3.0
2.6
2.6
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.1
4
15
35
70
61
2.6
2.6
29
25
38
65
33
2.6
2.0
10
47
21
35
31
37
63
55
59
16
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.7
4
2
24
18
45
50
47
32
22
31
35
49
50
45
37
42
74
67
41
33
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.7
2.2
2.1
20
24
49
58
74
32
37
33
35
26
10
26
43
43
16
2.1
1.9
1.8
2.2
2.2
1.7
42
32
52
65
67
32
11
21
28
21
37
21
40
33
16
21
28
16
11
5
21
47
8
2
17
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.8
2.1
1.6
1.4
1.5
*Computed where:
3
extremely important ( a rating of 9 or 10 on a 1-10 scale)
2
important ( a rating of 7 or 8 on a 1-10 scale)
1
not important ( a rating of 6 or below on a 1-10 scale)
.-
*
13
-
D.
Importance of Research Firm Performance Areas, Cont'd.
Table 6 shows the degree of importance of research firm per-
formance areas to the research firm in maintaining good clientresearch agency relations
Table 6
IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH FIRM PERFORMANCE AREAS
1989 Responses from Full & Field Service Research Firms
not
important
Question
Importance and Firm
extremely
important important
average
rating
Full Fld. Full Fld. Full Fld. Full Fld.
-------------- percentage ----------------
How importnat do you feel
these areas are to maintaining good clientagency relations?
--
-
75
87
2.7 2.8
qualified to do the job
6
5
19
8
references from past work 10
5
15
3
75
92
2.7 2.9
informing client of things
to come (no surprises) 4
3
36
27
60
70
2.6 2.7
timeliness in getting rsch.
36
19
60
done
4
5
76
2.6 2.7
proper handling of info.
14
5
21
16
2.5 2.7
65
79
communication between
client & agency
11
10
60
74
29
16
2.5 2.6
carrying on smooth
running relationship with client
6
8
49
34
45
58
2.4 2.5
credentials/reputation
15
6
31
24
54
70
2.4 2.6
willingness to receive
client imput
16
3
31
32
53
65
2.4 2.6
providing interpretaitons
of the rsch. results 17
27
35
32
2.3 2.1
48
41
help in analyzing problem 12
23
51
43
37
34
2.3 2.1
enthusiasm about project
22
18
41
29
37
53
2.2 2.3
flexibility in rsch. style 28
14
34
50
38
36
2.1 2.2
familiar with client's
industry or market
21
28
52
43
27
29
2.1 2.0
quality of work done
38
14
38
33
24
53
1.9 2.4
not sharing client's name 51
28
18
8
31
64
1.8 2.4
natinwide ability to do rsch. 42
44
42
28
16
28
1.7 1.8
scope of rsch. firm
61
52
29
36
10
12
1.7 1.8
suggests new research to do53
47
45
38
2
15
1.5 1.7
location of the firm
71
60
23
37
6
3
1.4 1.4
*Computed where:
3
extremely important ( a rating of 9 or 10 on a 1-10 scale)
2
important (a rating of 7 or 8 on a 1-10 scale)
1
not important (a rating of 6 or belOw on a 1-10 scale)
~­
14
-
E.
Performance of Research Firm
Table 7 shows the ratings given to their research firm by the
client in each of the performance areas.
Table 7
CLIENT EVALUATION OF RESEARCH FIRM PERFORMANCE
1989 Responses of V.P. of Marketing & Directors of Marketing Research
Rating and Title
excellent avg. rtg.
good
poor
Question
VP
Dir.
VP
-------------
Dir. VP Dir. VP Dir.
percentage -------------
How would you evaluate your
most used research firm's
performance in each of these
areas?
nationwide abilitYIDID rsch.
providing interpretations of
research results
quality of work done
credentials/reputation
willingness to receive your
input
timeliness in getting rsch.
done
carrying on a smooth running
relationship with you
enthusiasm about the project
help in analyzing problem
informing you of things to
come (no surprises)
flexibility in research style
references from past clients
suggest new research to do
*
-
5
29
26
20
69
51
2.6
2.2
6
5
5
30
2
13
29
32
39
25
23
35
65
63
56
45
75
52
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.1
2.7
2.4
11
0
28
27
61
73
2.5
2.7
16
2
21
48
63
50
2.5
2.5
11
11
11
2
6
21
33
39
39
33
36
28
56
50
50
65
58
51
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.3
11
8
14
30
42
44
33
31
12
42
44
40
29
45
39
28
23
50
42
30
29
2.3
2.1
2.1
1.6
2.4
2.3
2.0
1.9
28
31
65
Computed where:
3
excellent ( a rating on 9 or 10 on a 1-10 scale)
2
good ( a rating of 7 or 8 on a 1-10 scale)
1
poor ( a rating of 6 or below on a 1-10 scale)
-)!-
15
-
E.
Performance of Research Firm, Cont'd.
Table 8 shows the ratings given to themselves by the research
firm from the client's point of view in each of the performance areas.
Table 8
CLIENT EVALUATION OF RESEARCH FIRM PERFORMANCE
1989 Responses of Full & Field Service Firms
poor
Question
Full Fld.
Rating and Firm
excellent
good
Full Fld.
Full Fld.
avg. rtg.
Full Fld.
--------------- percentage ---------------
How do you feel your clients
would evaluate your performance in each of these areas?
-
-
78
quality of work done
22
5
95
0
0
78
18
82
credentials/reputation
0
16
6
timeliness in getting rsch.
16
82
done
2
2
29
69
willingness to receive
client input
28
13
68
82
4
5
24
references from past clients8
3
13
68
84
enthusiasm about project
24
74
2
24
68
8
providing interpretations
of rsch. results
61
33
18
10
49
29
carrying on smooth relationship with client
2
51
26
47
5
69
help in analyzing problem
8
24
31
53
45
39
nationwide ability to ill rsch.19
40
20
26
61
34
flexibility in rsch. style 12
13
40
34
48
53
informing client of things
to come (no surprises) 8
3
53
29
39
68
suggest new rsch. to do
12
40
58
24
18
18
*Computed where:
3
excellent ( a rating of 9 or 10 on a 1-10 scale)
2
good ( a rating of 7 or 8 on a 1-10 scale)
1 - poor ( a rating of 6 or below on a 1-10 scale)
2.8
2.7
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.5
1.8
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.2
1.9
2.4
2.3
1.8
2.7
1.6
-l:-
16
-
E.
Performance of Research Firm, Cont'd.
Table 9 shows the ratings given to their research firm by the
client in each of the potential problem areas of research firm performance.
Table 9
CLIENT EVALUATION OF PROBLEM AREAS IN RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
1989 Responses of V.P. of Marketing and Directors of Marketing Research
Degree of Problem and Title
slight
no
average
problem
problem
problem
rating
Question
*
VP Dir. VP Dir. VP Dir,
------------ percentage
VP
Dir.
32
32
42
46
17
12
26
26
5
23
26
23
42
42
53
31
57
65
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.6
1.6
37
31
10
25
53
44
1.8
1.9
32
37
16
17
23
17
21
5
10
21
25
26
47
58
74
62
52
57
1.8
1.8
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.6
17
18
5
30
79
52
1.4
1.7
In your opinion, how much are
these areas a problem in your
most used research firm's
performance?
surprises
scope of size of rsch. firm
location of the firm
communication gap causing
firm to miss your objs.
sharing of client's name, or
belief of
unfamiliar wi your market
unqualified to do job
did not know what to do with
information given
*Computed where:
1
no problem ( a rating of 1 on a 1-10 scale)
2
slight problem ( a rating of 2 on a 1-10 scale)
3
problem ( a rating of 3 on a 1-10 scale)
-
17
-
E. Performance of Research Firm, Con 'd.
Table 10 shows the ratings given to themselves by the research
firm from their client's point of view in each of the potential
problem areas in research firm performance.
Table 10
CLIENT EVALUATION OF PROBLEM AREAS IN RESEARCH FIRM PERFORMANCE
1989 Responses of Full and Field Service Research Firms
Degree of Problem and Firm
average *
slight
no
rating
problem
problem
problem
Question
Full Fld. Full Fld. Full Fld. Full Fld.
-------------- percentage ---------------
What do you feel is your
client's opinion of how
much these areas are problems in your performance?
--
location of your firm
58
scope of your sized firm
57
unfamiliar with your
client's market or
industry
43
surprises
34
communication gap causing
you to miss client's
objectives
25
unqualified to do the job 24
didn't know what to do with
info. given
20
sharing of client's name,
or belief of
32
57
56
16
10
8
8
26
33
41
36
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.2
30
16
26
28
28
35
31
38
42
49
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.7
17
13
24
20
25
11
51
56
58
76
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.4
12
18
21
62
67
1.6
1.4
12
25
9
62
79
1.5
1.3
*Computed where:
1
no problem ( a rating of 1 on a 1-10 scale)
2
slight problem ( a rating of 2 on a 1-10 scale)
problem ( a rating of 3 on a 1-10 scale)
3
18
-
F.
Overall Evaluation
Table 11 shows how satisfied the client is with his research
firm and how satisfied he feels his research firm is with itself.
Table 11
OVERALL EVALUATION OF RESEARCH FIRM
1989 Responses of V.P. of Marketing and Directors of Marketing Research
Rating and Title
extremely average *
well
well
rating
poorly
Question
-
,-
VP Dir. VP Dir. VP Dir.
------------- percentage
VP
Dir.
Overall, how well does your
research firm satsfy you?
5
2
60
44
35
54
2.3
2.5
How do you feel your research
firm would answer the above
question?
5
2
25
31
70
67
2.7
2.6
*Computed where:
3
extremely well ( a rating of 9 or 10 on a 1-10 scale)
2
well ( a rating of 7 or 8 on a 1-10 scale)
1
poorly ( a rating of 6 or below on a 1-10 scale)
19
F. Overall Evaluation, Cont'd.
Table 12 shows how the research firm feels it is satisfying its
clients and how it believes its clients feel.
Table 12
OVERALL EVALUATION OF RESEARCH FIRM
1989 Responses of Full & Field Service Research Firms
Rating and Firm
extremely
well
well
poorly
Question
*
Full Fld. Full Fld. Full Fld. Full Fld.
-------------- percentage ---------------
Overall, how well do you
feel your firm is satisfying your clients?
2
0
31
45
67
55
2.6
2.6
How would your clients
answer the above question?
2
0
41
42
57
58
2.5
2.6
*
-
average
rating
Computed where:
3
extremely well ( a rating of 9 or 10 on a 1-10 scale)
2
well (a rating of 7 or 8 on a 1-10 scale)
1
poorly ( a rating of 6 or below on a 1-10 scale)
20
-
G.
Evaluation of Client
Table 13 shows the client evaluation of themselves in the
performance areas specific to the client side.
Table 13
CLIENT SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
1989 Responses of V.P. of Marketing and Directors of Marketing Research
Rating and Title
extremely
well
well
poorly
Question
VP
Dir.
VP
average
rating
*
Dir. VP Dir. VP Dir.
percentage -------------
How well do you feel you
perform in these areas when
working with research firms?
-
you share specific questions
which must be answered
by the project
5
you are appreciative of your
firm's "on-target' efforts 10
you are readily available to
answer questions while
your firm is working on
the project
5
you share specific details of
the marketing problem
associated wi the project11
you are thorough in approving
project steps
10
you are prompt in approving
project steps
16
*
-
6
26
30
69
64
2.6
2.6
4
37
40
53
56
2.4
2.5
10
53
24
42
66
2.4
2.6
8
47
46
42
46
2.3
2.4
12
53
40
37
48
2.3
2.4
14
53
48
31
38
2.2
2.2
Computed where:
3
extremely well ( a rating of 9 or 10 on a 1-10 scale)
2
well ( a rating of 7 or 8 on a 1-10 scale)
1
poorly ( a rating of 6 or below on a 1-10 scale)
21
-
G.
Client Evaluation, Cont'd.
Table 14 shows the research firm evaluation of their clients in
the performance areas specific to the client side.
Table 14
CLIENT SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
1989 Responses of Full & Field Service Research Firms
Rating and Firm
good
excellent
poor
Question
avg. rtg.*
Full Fld. Full Fld. Full Fld. Full Fld.
--------------- percentage ---------------
In general, how well do
your clients perform in
these areas?
is readily accessible to
answer questions
18
appreciative of "on-target"
efforts
28
shares the specific
questions which must
be answered by project20
client shares specific
details of marketing
problem
29
thorough in approving
project steps
35
prompt in approving project
44
steps
13
47
58
35
29
2.2
2.2
19
35
46
37
35
2.1
2.2
34
51
29
29
37
2.1
2.0
42
46
37
25
21
2.0
1.8
33
45
45
20
22
1.9
1.9
36
46
44
10
20
1.7
1.8
* Computed where:
excellent ( a rating of 9 or 10 on a scale of 1-10)
3
2
good ( a rating of 7 or 8 on a scale of 1-10)
poor ( a rating of 6 or below on a scale of 1-10)
1
-
22
H.
Trend
Table 15 shows the opinion of both clients and research firms
of the trend of on-going long term relationships in research.
Table 15
TREND TOWARD LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP
1989 Responses of V.P. of Marketing and Directors of Marketing Research
Full and Field Service Research Firms
Question
Title/Firm
V.P.
Directors
Full
Field
------------ percentage -------------
What do you feel is the trend
toward the on-going long term
relationship between clients
and research firms?
growing
not changing
going down
Average rating*
* Computed where:
1
growing
2
not changing
3
going down
-
42
42
16
100
1.7
60
36
4
100
1.4
67
27
6
100
1.4
61
26
13
100
1.5
24
I.
Summary of Relationships Between Importance and Evaluation of
Performance Areas,Cont'd.
Table 17 shows the relationships between the importance areas
and the evaluation areas. Those shown are relationships of significance.
Table 17
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IMPORTANCE & EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE AREAS
1989 Responses from Full Service Research Firms
Evaluation Variable
analyt- refer- providing
smooth
ical
erences interpret- relationImportance Variable
help
ations
ship
------------------- relationship --------------flexibility
flexibility in style
of doing rsch.
timeliness in getting
rsch. done
nationwide ability to
do rsch.
credentials/rep.
+
references from past
clients
help in analyzing
the problem
informing the client
of things to
come
providing interpretations
carrying on a smooth
running relationship
willingness to receive
client input
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
25
-
I. Summary of Relationships Between Importance and Evaluation of
Performance Areas, Cont'd.
Table 18 shows the relationships between the importance areas
and the evaluation areas.
Those shown are relationships of significance.
Table 18
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IMPORTANCE & EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE AREAS
1989 Responses from Field Service Research Firms
flexibility
Importance Variable
-
-.
Flexibility in style
of doing rsch.
+
timeliness in getting
research done
+
references from past
clients
help in analyzing
the problem
providing interpretations of rsch.
carrying on a smooth
running relation.+
willingness to receive
client input
enthusiasm about the
job
+
Evaluation Variable
analyt- credential/ providing smooth
ical
reputation interpret- relationhelp
ations
ship
relationship -----------------
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
23
-
I.
Summary of Relationships Between Importance and Evaluation of
Performance Areas
Table 16 shows the relationships between the importance areas
and the evaluation areas.
Those shown are relationships of significance.
Table 16
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IMPORTANCE & EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE AREAS
1989 Responses from V.P. of Marketing and Directors of Marketing Research
Evaluation Variable
analyt- refer- providing
smooth
ical
ences
interpret- relationImportance Variable
help
ations
ship
------------------ relationship ---------------flexibility in style
of doing rsch.
+
timeliness in getting
rsch. done
+
+
+
+
nationwide ability
to do rsch.
+
credentials/rep.
+
+
quality of work done +
+
references from past
clients
+
help in analyzing
problem
+
+
+
providing interpretations of results
+
+
carrying on smooth
relationship
+
flexibility
-
*
+ sign on tables 16-18 denotes a positive relationship between
the importance variable and the evaluation variable.
26
-
J.
Importance Variables Affecting Evaluation of Flexibility
Table 19 shows those areas of importance that had an effect
on the evaluation of a firm's flexibility in style of doing research.
Table 19
IMPORTANCE VARIABLES AFFECTING EVALUATION OF FLEXIBILITY
1989 Responses of V.P. of Marketing and Directors of Marketing Research
Independent Variable
Evaluation of Rsch. Firm's Flexibility in Style
Importance of:
-
Ilexibility in style of
doing research
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
timeliness in getting rsch.
done
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
nationwide ability to do rsch.
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
quality of work done
those responding:
important
extremely important
*
Poor
Good
Excellent
percentage ---------------
28.6
24.1
4.5
57.1
41.4
27.3
14.3
34.5
68.2
o
50.0
60.9
27.5
50.0
21.7
52.5
44.4
45.8
21.4
25.9
41.7
71.4
100.0
36.1
44.3
17.4
20.0
29.6
12.5
7.1
o
19.7
o
To be read:
57.1% of those who felt that flexibility in style of doing
research is not important gave a good evaluation to their research
firm's flexibility in style of doing research.
-
27
-
J.
Importance Variables
Affecting Evaluation of Flexibility, Cont'd.
Table 20 shows those areas of importance that had an effect
on the evaluation of a firm's flexibility in style of doing research.
TAble 20
IMPORTANCE VARIABLES AFFECTING EVALUATION OF FLEXIBILITY
1989 Responses from Full Service Research Firms
Independent Variable
Evaluation of Rsch. Firm's Flexibility in Style
Importance of:
Poor
credentials/reputation
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
50.0
37.5
12.5
6.7
46.7
46.7
3.7
37.0
59.3
*
Good
Excellent
percentage ---------------
to be read: 50% of those who felt that credentials/reputation is
not important gave themselves a poor evaluation in their flexibility
in style of doing research.
-
-
28
-
J.
Importance Variables Affecting Evaluation of Flexibility, Cont'd.
Table 21 shows those areas of importance that had an effect
on the evaluationof a firm's flexibility in style of doing research.
Table 21
IMPORTANCE VARIABLES AFFECTING EVALUATION OF FLEXIBILITY
1989 Responses from Field Service Research Firms
Independent Variable
Evaluation of Rsch. Firm's Flexibility in Style
Importance of:
-
flexibility in style of
doing research
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
timeliness in getting rsch.
done
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
carrying on a smooth running
relationship
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
enthusiasm about the job
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
*
Poor
Good
Excellent
------------- percentage ---------------
40.0
5.6
7.7
20.0
61.1
7.7
40.0
33.3
84.6
50.0
28.6
6.9
o
57.1
31.0
50.0
14.3
62.1
66.7
15.4
4.5
33.3
30.8
36.4
53.8
59.1
42.9
9.1
5.0
28.6
54.5
25.0
28.6
36.4
70.0
o
To be read: 40% of those who felt that flexibility in style of doing
research is not important also gave themselves a poor evaluation in
flexibility.
-
29
.-
K.
Importance Variables Affecting Evaluation of Analytical Help
Table 22 shows those areas of importance that had an effect
on the evaluation of the firm's help in analyzing the problem.
Table 22
IMPORTANCE VARIABLES AFFECTING EVALUATION OF ANALYTICAL HELP
1989 Responses of V.P. of Marketing and Directors of Marketing Research
Independent Variable
Evaluation of Firm's Help in Analyzing Problem
Importance of:
-
quality of work done
those responding:
important
extremely important
help in analyzing the problem
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
providing interpretations of
results
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
carrying on a smooth running
relationship
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
*
Poor
75.0
15.0
Excellent
Good
percentage ---------------
o
25.0
31.7
53.3
11.1
6.3
21.4
55.6
33.3
18.8
75.0
20.0
36.4
74.1
57.1
46.7
33.3
18.2
3.7
45.5
22.2
30.8
18.5
12.5
40.7
12.5
38.5
21.4
30.8
40.7
75.0
to be read: 75% of those who felt that the quality of work done
is important gave a poor rating when evaluating their firm's help
in analyzing the problem.
-
30
-
K.
Importance Variables Affecting Evaluation of Analytical Help. Cont'd.
Table 23 shows those areas of importance that had an effect
on the evaluation of the firm's help in analyzing the problem.
Table 23
IMPORTANCE VARIABLES AFFECTING EVALUATION OF ANALYTICAL HELP
1989 Responses from Full Service Research Firms
Independent Variable
Evaluation of Firm's Help in Analyzing Problem
Poor
Good
Excellent
-------------- percentage --------------help in analyzing the problem
those responding:
16.7
33.3
50.0
not' important
46.2
3.8
50.0
important
27.8
o
extremely important
72.2
informing client of things
to come (no surprises)
those responding:
50.0
o
50.0
not important
33.3
11.1
important
55.6
o
31.0
extremely important
69.0
providing interpretations of
research results
those responding:
22.2
not important
33.3
44.4
5.6
38.9
important
55.6
o
25.0
extremely important
75.0
willingness to receive client
input
those responding:
not important
25.0
12.5
62.5
important
6.3
37.5
56.3
extremely important
o
23.1
76.9
Importance of:
-
*
to be read: 50% of those who felt that help in analyzing the problem
is not important gave themselves a good evaluation in helping analyze
the problem.
-
31
-
K.
Importance Variables Affecting Evaluation of Analytical Help, Cont'd.
Table 24 shows those areas of importance that had an effect
on the evaluation of the firm's help in analyzing the problem.
Table 24
IMPORTANCE VARIABLES AFFECTING EVALUATION OF ANALYTICAL HELP
1989 Responses from Field Service Research Firms
Independent Variable
Importance of:
-
-
Evaluation of Firm's Help in Analyzing Problem
Poor
Good
Excellent
-------------- percentage ---------------
flexibility in style of
doing research
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
help in analyzing the problem
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
~~
40.0
22.2
15.4
40.0
44.4
7.7
20.0
33.3
76.9
25.0
33.3
8.3
37.5
46.7
8.3
37.5
20.0
83.3
to be read: 40% of those who felt that flexibility in style of
doing research gave themselves a poor evaluation in helping analyze
the problem.
32
-
L.
Importance \ariables Affecting Evaluation of References
Table 25 shows those areas of importance that had an effect
on the evaluation of a firm's references from past clients.
Table 25
IMPORTANCE OF VARIABLES AFFECTING EVALUATION OF REFERENCES
1989 Responses from V.P. of Marketing and Directors of Marketing Research
Independent Variable
Importance of:
Evaluation of Research Firm's References
Poor
Good
Excellent
----------- percentage ---------------
-
timeliness in getting
research done
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
credentials/reputation
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
references from past clients
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
help in analyzing problem
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
*
100.0
42.9
18.8
0
33.3
40.6
0
23.8
40.6
63.6
28.6
27.3
42.9
9.1
28.6
47.8
50.0
25.0
0
37.5
45.0
18.2
12.5
30.0
81.8
33.3
31.3
15.4
33.3
56.3
38.5
33.3
12.5
46.2
to be read: 100% of those who felt that timeliness in getting research
done is not important gave a poor evaluation on their research
firm's references from past clients.
-.
33
-
L.
Importance Variables Affecting Evaluation of References, Cont'd.
Table 26 shows those areas of importance that had an effect
on the evaluation of a firm's references from past clients.
Table 26
IMPORTANCE OF VARIABLES AFFECTING EVALUATION OF REFERENCES
1989 Responses from Full Service Research Firms
Independent Variable
Evaluation of Research Firm's References
Importance of:
timeliness in getting research
done
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
credentials/reputation
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
references from past clients
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
informing the client of things
to come (no surprises)
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
~~
Poor
Good
Excellent
----------- percentage ---------------
100.0
10.5
0
0
26.3
24.1
0
63.2
75.9
37.5
0
3.8
25.0
50.0
7.7
37.5
50.0
88.5
40.0
12.5
2.7
40.0
25.0
21.6
20.0
62.5
75.7
50.0
11.1
50.0
44.4
10.7
44.4
89.3
o
o
to be read: 100% of those who felt that timeliness in getting research
done is not important gave themselves a poor evaluation of references
from past clients.
-
34
M.
Importance Variables Affecting Evaluaiton of Credentials/Reputation
Table 27 shows those areas of importance that had an effect
on the evaluation of a firm's credentials/reputation.
Table 27
IMPORTANCE VARIABLES AFFECTING EVALUATION OF CREDENTIALS/REPUTATION
1989 Responses from Field Service Research Firms
Independent Variable
Evaluation of Rsch. Firms Credentials/Reputation
Importance of:
Poor
Good
Excellent
----------- percentage ---------------
-
flexibility in style of
doing research
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
references from past clients
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
willingness to receive client
input
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
*
0
0
0
60.0
16.7
7.7
40.0
83.3
92.3
0
0
0
50.0
100.0
14.3
50.0
0
85.7
0
0
0
100.0
25.0
12.5
0
75.0
87.5
to be read: 60% of those who felt that flexibility in style of doing
research is not important gave themselves a good evaluation of
credentials/reputation.
-
35
-
N.
Importance Variable Affecting Evaluation of Performance in
Providing Interpretations
Table 28 shows those areas of importance that had an effect on
the evaluation
of performance in providing interpretations of
research results.
Table 28
IMPORTANCE VARIABLE AFFECTING EVALUATION
OF PERFORMANCE IN PROVIDING INTERPRETATIONS
1989 Responses of V.P. of Marketing and Directors of Marketing Research
Independent Variable
Evaluation of Firm's Performance in
Providing Interpretations of Rsch. Results
Importance of:
-
timeliness in getting rsch.
done
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
help in analyzing the problem
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
providing interpretations of
research results
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
*
Poor
Good
Excellent
percentage
0
36.4
17.9
100.0
22.7
23.1
0
40.9
59.0
53.8
16.7
15.6
30.8
44.4
12.5
15.4
38.9
71.9
64.3
13.6
11.1
28.6
31.8
18.5
7.1
54.5
70.4
to be read: 100% of those who felt that timeliness in getting
research done is not important gave their research firm a good
evaluation in their performance in providing interpretations of
research results.
36
-
N.
Importance Variable Affecting Evaluation of Performance in
Providing Interpretations, Cont'd.
Table 29 shows those areas of importance that had an effect on
the evaluation of performance in providing interpretations of research
results.
Table 29
IMPORTANCE VARIABLE AFFECTING EVALUATION
OF PERFORMANCE IN PROVIDING INTERPRETATIONS
1989 Responses from Full Service Research Firms
Independent Variable
Evaluation of Firm's Performance in
Providing Interpretations of Rsch. Results
Importance of:
-
help in analyzing the problem
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
providing interpretations of
research results
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
*
Poor
66.7
0
0
Good
Excellent
percentage --------------16.7
38.5
22.2
16.7
61.5
77 .8
44.4
22.2
33.3
5.6
0
50.0
16.7
44.4
83.3
to be read: 66.7% of those who felt that help in analyzing the
problem is not important gave themselves a poor evaluation in their
performance in providing interpretations of research results .
-
.
37
-
N.
Importance Variable Affecting Evaluation of Performance in
Providing Interpretations, Oont'd.
Table 30 shows those areas of importance that had an effect on
the evaluation of performance in providing interpretations of research
results.
Table 30
IMPORTANCE VARIABLE AFFECTING EVALUATION
OF PERFORMANCE IN PROVIDING INTERPRETATIONS
1989 Responses from Field Service Research Firms
Independent Variable
Importance of:
-
Evaluation of Firm's Performance in
Providing Interpretations of Rsch. Results
Poor
Good
Excellent
-------------- percentage ---------------
flexibility in style of
doing research
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
providing interpretations of
research results
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
help in analyzing the problem
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
*
100.0
60.0
16.7
o
o
20.0
16.7
20.0
66.7
100.0
54.5
23.1
0
27.3
7.7
0
18.2
69.2
85.7
57.1
20.0
0
21.4
10.0
14.3
21.4
70.0
to be read: 100% of those who felt that flexibility in style of
doing research is not important gave themselves a poor evaluation in
their performance in providing interpretations of research results.
-
38
-
O.
Importance Variables Affecting Evaluation of Smooth Relationsip
Table 31 shows those areas of importance that had an effect on
the evaluation of the research firm's ability to carryon a smooth
running relationship with the client.
Table 31
IMPORTANCE VARIABLES AFFECTING EVALUATION
OF SMOOTH RELATIONSHIP
1989 Responses of V.P. of Marketing and Directors of Marketing Research
Independent Variable
Importance of:
-
timeliness in getting
research done
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
credentials/reputation
those responding
not important
important
extremely important
*
Evaluation of Rsch. Firm's Smooth Running
Relationship with the Client
Poor
Good
Excellent
percentage ---------------
0
0
7.5
50.0
52.2
20.0
50.0
47.8
72.5
7.1
4.0
3.8
64.3
36.0
11.5
28.6
60.0
84.6
to be read: 50% of those who felt that timeliness in getting the
research done is not important gave a good rating to their research
firm's smooth running relationship with the client.
39
-
O.
Importance Variables Affecting Evaluation of Smooth Relationship. Cont'd.
Table 32 shows those areas of importance that had an effect on
the evaluation of the research firm's ability to carryon a smooth
running relationship with the client.
Table 32
IMPORTANCE VARIABLES AFFECTING EVALUATION
OF SMOOTH RELATIONSHIP
1989 Responses from Full Service Research Firms
Independent Variable
Importance of:
-
Evaluation of Rsch. Firm's Smooth Running
Relationship with the Client
Poor
Good
Excellent
------------ percentage ---------------
flexibility in style of
doing research
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
nationwide ability to do rsch.
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
references from past clients
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
carrying on a smooth running
relationship
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
willingness to receive client
input
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
*
0
5.9
0
85.7
41.2
27.8
14.3
52.9
72.2
4.5
0
0
68.2
50.0
0
27.3
50.0
100.0
20.0
0
0
60.0
87.5
42.1
20.0
12.5
57.9
33.3
33.3
72.0
31.8
33.3
28.0
68.2
50.0
75.0
34.6
37.5
25.0
65.4
o
o
12.5
o
o
to be read: 85.7% of those who felt that flexibility in style of
doing research is not important gave themselves a good evaluation in
their smooth running relationships with clients.
40
O.
Importance Variables Affecting Evaluation of Smooth Relationship, Cont'd.
Table 33 shows those areas of importance that had an effect on
the evaluation of the research firm's ability to carryon a smooth
running relationship with the client.
Table 33
IMPORTANCE VARIABLES AFFECTING EVALUATION
OF SMOOTH RELATIONSHIP
1989 Responses from Field Service Research Firms
Independent Variable
Evaluation of Rsch. Firm's Smooth Running
Relationship with the Client
Importance of:
-
carrying on a smooth running
relationship with client
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
willingness to receive client
input
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
ethusiasm about the job
those responding:
not important
important
extremely important
*
Poor
Good
Excellent
percentage ---------------
o
33.3
46.2
13.6
53.8
86.4
0
8.3
0
100.0
50.0
12.5
0
41.7
87.5
14.3
9.1
0
57.1
36.4
10.0
28.6
54.5
90.0
66.7
o
o
to be read: 66.7% of those who felt that carrying on a smooth running relationship with the client is not important gave themselves
a poor evaluation in their smooth running relationship with clients .
-
.
41
.-
P.
Performance Areas Affecting Satisfaction
Table 34 shows those areas of performance that had an effect
on the client's satisfaction with the research firm.
Table 34
PERFORMANCE AREAS AFFECTING SATISFACTION
1989 Responses of V.P. Marketing and Directors of Marketing Research
Degree of Client Satisfaction
Performance Area
Evaluation of:
flexibility in style of doing
research
poor
good
excellent
timeliness in getting rsch. done
poor
good
excellent
nationwide ability to do rsch.
poor
good
excellent
credentials/reputation
poor
good
excellent
quality of work done
poor
good
eoccellent
help in analyzing problem
poor
good
excellent
no surprises
poor
good
excellent
providing interpretations of
rsch. results
poor
good
excellent
carrying on a smooth relationship
poor
good
excellent
Well
Extremely Well
Poorly
----------- percentage ----------8.3
3.7
50.0
66.7
29.6
41.4
29.6
70.4
25.0
3.7
75.0
59.3
36.1
37.0
63.9
7.1
57.1
85.7
33.3
35.7
14.3
63.9
14.3
4.2
57.1
66.7
34.3
28.6
29.2
65.7
50.0
5.9
50.0
70.6
39.6
23.5
60.4
o
o
o
2.8
o
o
16.7
66.7
o
o
o
o
50.0
39.4
16.7
50.0
60.6
33.3
33.3
64.3
37.5
33.3
35.7
62.5
6.7
5.9
66.7
52.9
34.4
26.7
41.2
65.6
o
66.7
68.2
36.6
33.3
22.7
63.4
o
o
o
9.1
o
42
-
P. Peformance Areas Affecting Satisfaction, Cont'd.
Table 34
PERFORMANCE AREAS AFFECTING SATISFACTION
1989 Responses of V.P. Marketing and Directors of Marketing Research, Cont'd.
Performance Area
Evaluation of:
-
willingness to receive client
input
poor
good
excellent
scope of size of rsch. firm
problem
slight problem
no problem
location of firm
problem
slight problem
no problem
communication gap
problem
slight problem
no problem
unqualified to do requested job
problem
slight problem
no problem
inappropriate use of info.
problem
slight problem
no problem
*
Degree of Client Satisfaction
Well
Poorly
Extremely Well
------------ percentage ----------0
5.6
2.2
100.0
72.2
37.0
0
22.2
60.9
7.1
5.9
0
71.4
70.6
31.4
68.6
23.5
68.6
14.3
0
0
57.1
50.0
46.3
28.6
50.0
53.7
9.1
0
0
72.7
50.0
32.3
67.7
50.0
67.7
9.1
7.1
0
72.7
64.3
37.5
18.2
28.6
62.5
18.2
0
0
63.6
60.0
41.0
18.2
40.0
59.0
to be read: 50 % of those who evaluated their research firm's
flexibility as poor were well satisfied with their research firm.
43
-
P.
Performance Areas Affecting Satisfaction, Cont'd.
Table 35 shows those areas of performance that had an effect
on the client's satisfaction with the research firm.
Table 35
PERFORMANCE AREAS AFFECTING SATISFACTION
1989 Responses from Full Service Research Firms
Degree of Client Satisfaction
Performance Area
Evaluation of:
-
credentials/reputation
poor
good
excellent
references from past clients
poor
good
excellent
help in analyzing problem
poor
good
excellent
communication gap
problem
slight problem
no problem
did not know what to do with
the info. given
problem
slight problem
no problem
*
Well
Poorly
Extremely Well
----------- percentage ----------0
0
2.5
66.7
75.0
20.0
33.3
25.0
77 .5
0
0
2.9
75.0
75.0
11.8
25.0
25.0
85.3
0
5.0
0
50.0
50.0
14.8
50.0
45.0
85.2
7.7
0
0
53.8
41.7
15.4
38.5
58.3
84.6
0
11.1
0
50.0
55.6
19.4
50.0
33.3
80.6
to be read: 66.7% of those who gave themselves a poor evaluation
of credentials/reputation felt that they satisfy their clients well.
-
44
-
P.
Performance Areas Affecting Satisfaction, Cont'd.
Table 36 shows those areas of performance that had an effect
on the client's satisfaction with the research firm.
Table 36
PERFORMANCE AREAS AFFECTING SATISFACTION
1989 Responses from Field Service Research Firms
Degree of Client Satisfaction
Performance Area
Evaluation of:
-
timeliness in getting rsch. done
poor
good
excellent
help in analyzing problem
poor
good
excellent
carrying on a smooth running
relationship
poor
good
excellent
enthusiasm about the job
poor
good
excellent
communication gap
problem
slight problem
no problem
*
Well
Poorly
Extremely Well
----------- percentage ----------0
0
0
100.0
83.3
35.5
0
16.7
64.5
0
0
0
77 .8
66.7
35.3
22.2
33.3
64.7
0
0
0
100.0
70.0
30.8
0
30.0
69.2
0
0
0
100.0
77.8
32.1
0
22.2
67.9
0
0
0
83.3
33.3
33.3
16.7
66.7
66.7
to be read: 100% of those who gave themselves a poor evaluation
of timeliness in getting research done felt that they satisfy their
clients well.
-
45
Q.
Comparison of Satisfaction
Table 37 shows the reciprocal level of satisfaction of the
research firm as compared to the level of client satisfacation.
Table 37
COMPARISON OF SATISFACTION
1989 Responses of V.P. of Marketing and Directors of Marketing Research
Own Satisfaction
Those Responding to
How Well They Are Satisfied
Poorly
Well
Extremely Well
Client Opinion of How Well Research Firm
is Satisfied with Own Performance
Poorly
Well
Extremely Well
---------- percentage -----------100.0
o
o
o
o
48.5
12.1
51.5
87.9
Table 38
-
COMPARISON OF SATISFACTION
1989 Responses from Full and Field Service Research Firms
Own Satisfaction
Those Responding to
How Well They Are Satisfied
Client Opinion of How Well Research Firm
is Satisfied with Own Performance
Poorly
Well
Extremely Well
---------- percentage ------------
Full Service
poorly
well
extremely well
100.0
0
0
Field Service
well
extremely well
0
0
0
100.0
14.7
0
0
85.3
82.4
9.5
17.6
90.5
* both tables to be read: 100% of those who were poorly satisfied
with their research firm's performance also felt that their
research firm felt the same way.