Research 2.0: The Changing Internet Landscape and
Implications for Researchers
April 2007
Agenda
• Web 2.0: Fact or fiction?
• Impact on the relationship with customers and stakeholders
• Research 2.0
• New methods of engagement, research applications
• Parting thoughts
2
What is Web 2.0?
3
What is Web 2.0? (cont’d)
Common elements of the Web 2.0 concept:
• Interfaces and applications  no longer about pages and sites.
• Personalization  users can customize their experience.
• Community  users interact with one another, sometimes
forming social networks.
• Creation  the platform facilitates creation, not just
communication or participation.
• Collaboration  creation is collaborative rather than isolated
(and users can share data in different forms).
• Cumulative  it’s an ongoing process, where creation can be
built upon.
4
What is Web 2.0? (cont’d)
• Web 2.0 is not just about the tools and technologies. It’s about
the people and what they are doing with them.
• It represents a shift in behaviour – to some extent what people
envisioned for the Web at the very beginning.
− “It's no longer all about idly surfing and passively reading, listening,
or watching. It's about doing: sharing, socializing, collaborating, and,
most of all, creating.” - Eckart Walther, Yahoo! Inc. Vice-President
for Product Management
• It also represents a shift in control.
5
Web 2.0: Fact or Fiction?
Is it just another buzzword? Consider…
•
Roughly 25 million people are using
YouTube.
•
At MySpace.com, 21 million monthly
visitors spend up to several hours a
day sharing their thoughts, photos,
and music with friends on
personalized home pages.
•
Cyworld claims almost a third of
South Korea's 48 million people as
members.
•
Technorati tracks more than 70
million blogs.
6
Web 2.0: Fact or Fiction?
• Nike placed this video of
Ronaldinho on YouTube.
• It costs them nothing to place it,
and it’s been viewed more than
12 million times.
7
Web 2.0: Fact or Fiction? (cont’d)
8
The New Relationship with Stakeholders
Traditional Relationship
New Relationship
•Top-down:
•Bottom-up or interactive:
−Organization starts with an
objective.
−Plans are put in place.
−Strategies and tactics are
developed internally, and then tested
with audiences.
−Marketers refine communications,
products, services in an attempt to
bridge the gap.
−The process terminates when the
audiences behave in a manner that
is consistent with the objectives.
−Relationship is more like “parentchild”
−Organizations receives input about
their programs, services, or about
problems/issues encountered by
audiences.
−They engage in iterative
discussions with audiences to clarify
issues raised and ask directed
questions.
−Clients/audiences propose
changes or unique approaches,
rather than simply receiving
internally-generated initiatives.
−The dialogue is ongoing, with
audiences becoming integral players
in the planning process.
−Relationship is more “adult-adult”
9
Example: Communication Environment
Old Communication Process
Decode
Code
Communicator
Message
Audience
For message to be received,
presumes communicator and
audience connect
New Communication Process
Communicator
Audience
10
Research 2.0
• So, what does this all mean for research (2.0)?
• It means we have to consider both the behavioural and technical
changes that have occurred to:
−
−
−
−
Better engage the people we need – respondents, participants.
Leverage the power of their thinking to generate ideas, identify issues.
Tap into water-cooler discussions.
Attain more accurate results.
• It involves…
− New methods of engagement (a different mindset in approaching research
participants).
− The application of new technologies within existing methodologies.
− Observing users, listening in on conversations.
• It does not mean that we discard traditional methods.
11
Research 2.0: Implications
Traditional Research
Research 2.0
•More control over feedback,
dialogue
•Less control, dialogue shaped to
a greater extent by audiences
•Participants as “lab rats”
•Participants as stakeholders
•Structured feedback methods
•More observation
•We pick the questions and
(sometimes) the answers
•People are enabled to suggest
questions and provide true
answers
12
Research 2.0: New Methods of Engagement
• Traditional research approaches are framed within the top-down,
command and control model.
− We tend to cast people as passive “respondents” with little control over the
enquiry process.
• Response rates continue to be a challenge, in part because people are
becoming more discerning about lending their time to organizations
with which they have little or no prior affinity.
• Need to adapt approaches to the new, collaborative nature of the
relationship.
− To address problems of participation, we need to adapt to cultural change.
• There is an opportunity to tap into bottom-up, interactive
communications by engaging people in different ways.
13
A Scenario…
1. A group of people are asked to attend a focus group to discuss
their attitudes towards a sensitive communications campaign.
There are people from a sponsoring government organization
viewing the session.
2. The same group of people happen to be at somebody’s house
for a social gathering, where they have a “water cooler” type
discussion about the issue and the related campaign.
•
Which do you think will be the more honest and insightful
discussion?
14
New Methods of Engagement : Private Online
Communities
• Private online communities differ
from online panels in that they
are:
− more collaborative (bottom-up
rather than top-down);
− less controlled; and
− people develop a stake in the
community because they can see
how results are being used.
• Benefits include:
− higher participation, engagement;
− user-generated ideas; and
− surfacing of unasked questions.
P&G’s Vocalpoint engages a
community of moms in part
because they get "a voice that is
going to be heard by companies.”
15
New Methods of Engagement : Private Online
Communities
• I’m not suggesting that online communities replace traditional
methods altogether.
Panels*, surveys good for…
Online communities good for…
•Quantifying impact, attitudes, etc.
•Identifying emerging needs
•Estimating demand
•Surfacing new product or service
ideas
•Applying conjoint and other
advanced quantitative
methodologies
•Refining concepts
•Listening for attitudes
•Recognition that panels need to be properly constituted, managed
16
Research 2.0: Using Technology to Improve Methods
• Typically, online surveys have emulated the paper-based
version.
− Acknowledge that they have CATI-like capabilities.
• More dynamic applications create a new set of expectations for
engaging people in research.
− The Xbox generation who will be participating in our research in the
future will expect surveys, etc. that go beyond the typical emulation
of the paper-based version.
• There are opportunities to make the experience more engaging
and enjoyable.
− Helps address response rate issue.
− In some cases, the technology can improve the quality of data.
17
Using Technology to Improve Methods:
Personalized, Dynamic Survey Experience
• Utilizes AJAX (Asyncronous JavaScript and XML).
− e.g. Used in Google Maps
• Can improve engagement, quality through such techniques
as…
− overlaying of objects on the same page to avoid scrolling, long lists;
and
− advancing rows of scaled questions.
• Generate greater insight through new techniques.
− Pop-up, follow-on questions within the same screen.
− Enable respondents to access background information to make
informed decisions.
− Use drag and drop methods that permit new types of analysis.
18
Using Technology to Improve Methods:
Personalized, Dynamic Survey Experience
On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means
strongly agree, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the
following statements
The presenter used effective teaching aids and methods.
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
1
2
3
4
5





19
Using Technology to Improve Methods:
Online Diaries
•
Online diaries enable participants to record their experience as they move
through a process.
−
•
Simulates the traditional diary methods used in research.
−
•
Can be more or less structured in nature, depending on requirements.
Applications enable participants to:
−
−
−
−
−
•
e.g. applying for a passport, taking out a mortgage, etc.
describe what happens on a daily or weekly basis as they migrate through the process;
answer pre-posted questions (e.g. result expected, what worked well, what did not work
well, suggested improvements) for each interaction;
engage in dialogue with an observing moderator (e.g. to clarify issues that emerge);
participate in follow-up interviews or discussions; and
record their experience online or using a mobile device.
Compared to traditional methods…
−
−
permits moderator intervention during the process; and
facilitates involvement, better addresses recall bias.
20
Research 2.0: Listening in on Conversations
• Blogs, video sharing, and public communities enable us to
observe and track water cooler discussions on the Internet.
• It involves less intervention and more observation.
− Observation has traditionally been underutilized as a technique
because of the expense.
• It requires a level of comfort with honest feedback, water-cooler
conversations.
− A listening culture.
21
Listening in on Conversations:
Observation
• "It's fantastic from a consumer
research standpoint. You can
type in a search for 'shopping'
and then see (videos) of people
showing their shopping habits.
It's almost like a global focus
group." - Barry Lowenthal,
President, Media Kitchen,
discussing the benefits of
YouTube in a USA Today article.
• Shopping Habits
22
Listening in on Conversations:
Blog Tracking
• Various services have emerged to track trends, “buzz”
generated on the “blogsphere”.
• It’s a method to track and listen in on unsolicited opinion.
• Can be used to…
− track the “buzz” created by a new product launch or initiative;
− identify the issues that affect sentiment related to your product or
initiative; and
− identify key influences.
23
Other Implications for Marketing Research
• The current approach that we use for web metrics needs to be
reviewed.
− e.g. If using an AJAX-supported web application, how do we
measure usage when they are being served up content within the
same page.
24
Some Parting Thoughts
• As an industry, we need to think about the inherent value of what we
do…
− Are we in the business of delivering traditional “qualitative” and “quantitative”
research?
− Or, are we in the business of delivering marketing insights, utilizing
techniques that are best suited to the times?
• We need to recognize that the relationship between organizations and
the audiences they serve is changing.
− People expect to influence decisions, be involved.
− Be prepared to give up some control.
• We should appreciate the power and value of collaborative
communications.
− “The successful organization is not the one with the most brains, but the
most brains acting in concert.” – Peter Drucker
25
Some Parting Thoughts
• Going forward, consider new approaches that enable you to dig
deeper, leverage the power of collaboration.
• Be creative – understand the possibilities of Web 2.0
technologies.
• Learn the rules and play within them.
26
Questions?
Doug Church
Partner
Phase 5
(613) 241-7555 ext. 101
dougc@phase-5.com
27