Comments on: Persevering Dinosaurs

By: Tom H. C. Anderson

Tom H. C. Anderson — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:30:15 +0000

The scope of my comment was clearly limited to MR industry. Mega firms innovate via M&A. But that is a slower process.

By: paulkirch

paulkirch — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:45:00 +0000

Tom – Thank you for the feedback. It’s an interesting point you bring up. Let’s look at this from a consumer perspective. Though big corporations still have power and resources, the consumers are often shying away from the “evil empires.” Big corporations have had so much negative stigma and social networking has done nothing but fuel that. Therefore, there is a shift in buying behavior toward trusting the smaller shops or the non-corporate entities. The strategy used to be to emulate the bigger companies, to position yourself as bigger than you really are. Today, it’s just the opposite. So, it’s not just the nimble factor, but it’s really about buying behaviors. B2B used to be insulated. Consumers bought differently at home than while buying for their company. Now, those behaviors are merging. The upside is that the small shops, if innovative and credible, have a great chance at earning business away from the mega firms. The downside is, large corporations are often the ones funding innovation and development. They give millions to causes and do things that small firms don’t or can’t. Yes, there have been tragic stories like Enron and others, but in reality, there are so many great things that come from corporate contributions. It may apply less to market research, but it speaks volumes to the world we live in. My fear is everyone will start believing in no benefits of scale, which will take our country and world to a very scary place. Though I’m happy to be a smaller, more nimble firm, the world needs the mega firms. And, as a final note, don’t mistake your “weaker” comment as reality. That’s perception. After all, if a large company wants to embrace a technology, they’ll buy up the small company that offers it. Or, they’ll invest in creating it. There’s a difference between dabbling and dominating. If they’re doing the former, don’t think they aren’t capable of doing the latter. That’s why your point about specialization is so important for the smaller agencies, since reputation and expertise are your best asset.

By: Tom H. C. Anderson

Tom H. C. Anderson — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:12:39 +0000

Interesting perspectives.

While I often talk about ‘Next Gen Research’, I really think it’s more about small vs. large and specialization vs doing everything. I think clients will continue to have a need for many various specific and traditional research methodologies, what is changing is the perception of who can best provide this.

Clients are realizing that the mega vendors can not offer knowledgeable high quality service across all these categories. Because of their large size they can not move quickly enough to be innovative in online techniques, yet they have simultaneously ignored some of the more traditional means in hopes of competing in the new areas.

This means they are weaker across the board than any smaller more specialized firm whether we are talking about newer or more traditional techniques. They are regressing toward the mean if you will.

I think it’s an interesting time to be a small co., in a new age with no benefits of scale.

By: paulkirch

paulkirch — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:52:57 +0000

Michael - thanks for the great feedback. First off, let me say that I didn't know the French used sarcasm... (Ok, that's my mid-west sarcasm coming out) :) In all seriousness, I have to say you are showing some impressive growth. Two things stand out when I think about EFG. First, you are a global player, which can lead to a great number of opportunities. In this day and age, the world is shrinking and I do believe the fact that you're able to serve so many markets in so many ways is very powerful. Have you read Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant? Or how about The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century? Both address this very well. The second thing I have to comment on is that your company has become very active at promotion and getting creative. When I see something from your firm, it really does focus on how you're different, how you're offering something that others aren't... As a company, you've focused on standing out in a very competitive space. Yes, your global reach is important, but I think your messaging is really the key. I commend you for that. Though I don't know that my article made my position 100% clear, I don't believe that the dinosaur argument is valid. Segments of business are being generalized, when it really comes down to a business by business situation. Each company can choose to get creative or choose to keep operating as they have for years. It does take effort and time, and possibly even money, but taking steps to differentiate and create value that matters to the buyers is more important that ever. So, I don't believe it's a US Vs world argument, but rather it's about relating to what's happening in the marketplace. Are people buying differently than before? Yes, and it will continue to change. Right now, it's really viewed as a consumer buying behavior shift, but I see it happening on the B2B side as well. Therefore, keep being creative and keep focusing on standing out.

By: Michael Wiesenfeld

Michael Wiesenfeld — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:22:49 +0000

Hi Paul, thanks for sharing this!
Extinction is often time related to the incapacity of adapting to new environments. Dinosaurs couldn’t adapt to a world without sun and they disappeared…
As you know, my company (EFG) core business is based on off-line International data collection mainly, and we have been growing at a strong pace year after year excepted in 2009 where we had a Y-to-Y growth of only 14%. Not too bad you would tell me for one of the worst year in the industry. What was interesting last year, and which will directly address/contradict the point-less point (in my opinion) that the MRA convention was trying to make is that our 2009 growth (new clients…) came from companies who initially started their research project through a pure online approach and half-way through realized they would be short anywhere from 50-80% of their completes’ target. Hence, they reached out to us asking if we could take on the project using our telephone or F2F capabilities. That is something we have actually been seeing increasing exponentially since 2007.
The real novelty of 2009, at least for us, was to have realized about 20% of our overall 2009 business with online panels pure players…This % was close to 0 in 2008! Why? I guess these companies started to figure out that they are necessarily limited when it comes to hard-to-reach targets (how many cardiologists in Spain can you get online to answer a 30 minutes interview?), and/or the number of countries they can reach out to. In fact, in this global economy, being able to reach people in 30 or so countries is not enough. You need to be able research in 80-100+ countries. How many online panel companies can pretend to reach anyone in Ukraine, Taiwan, UAE, Bangladesh, Chile, Peru, Ivory Coast, and so on…? Not too many. Respondents who are drinking water once a day, eventually, but not ITDM, C-Levels, or Patients with Diabetes! (Alright, that’s my French sarcasm coming back to the surface ). These countries and/or hard to reach targets will always remain doable through traditional methods and may never be doable online. Why am I saying never? Because it’s not only related to technological issues/restrictions, but very much related to local cultures. Any interviews over 30 min in the Middle East have to be done F2F because they are culturally always interrupted therefore impossible to do it on the telephone, and not committed enough to do it online.

Maybe this “Dinosaur” assessment was meant to the US market, and maybe it’s true here, but when it comes to international research, it’s absolutely not true. Actually, in my opinion, what may turns traditional data collection houses into dinosaurs is not the online/offline factor, but the fact that they may or may not be able to grow their business internationally!

Your Thoughts?

By: paulkirch

paulkirch — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:19:49 +0000

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. If it seemed I ascribe too much innocence, then I probably didn’t convey my true feelings enough. Also, I would say my post was less about dissecting language, but more about addressing something that has really been bothering me. I think I neglected to mention that the first statement came from a speaker at the event. I do agree about the de-positioning and I agree it’s unproductive. It’s also happening frequently and often within the walls of industry conferences where the audience is often the labeled. I rarely hear solutions tied to it either. I have had issue with it each time I have heard it. That’s why we’re trying to do something to address the issue. You bring up some great points about the insecurity, since there are several firms trying to drive the ‘what next,’ but many others are so busy dealing with their current workload, they are unable to explore everything that’s being discussed.

I think labeling is a dangerous practice, especially considering the people doing the labeling are just as vulnerable. I’d love to talk to you further, since I think you and I are on the same page, though perhaps my sentiments seemed softened by the words I chose. Finding ways to give firms more opportunity is something I’m very dedicated to, though I can’t come up with the answers on my own. Otherwise, I’d be guilty of giving a blanket solutions, which is not much different than labeling.

By: Theo Downes-Le Guin

Theo Downes-Le Guin — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:49:30 +0000

Paul, very interesting for you to dissect the language that people are using as a topic. I think you perhaps acribe a little too much innocence to the labels; depending on who is talking, the “dinosaur” label is often a method of de-positioning others. But that is of course coming from someone who works for a company with call centers. On the whole I find the habit of labeling entire firms this way to be entirely unproductive for everyone, and above all for clients who (in large firms at least) are inevitably reliant on everyone from large suppliers that may support critical but unimaginative research programs, to very small firms focused on a small set of progressive but narrowly-defined services. On the other hand, the labeling speaks to an industry-wide insecurity (shared by both the “dinosaurs” and their supposed successors) about What Comes Next. As nervous as executives in firms that rely on “old” technology are, those in small and progressive firms are equally nervous that they may not have made the right bet on which approaches and platforms will eventually shake out and prevail. What we do not have yet, is any example of a firm that is both large and financially stable enough to meet a broad range of F500 clients’ insight needs, while also being operationally and philosophically rooted in a research model that does not rely on the traditional interviewer-subject transaction and on the presumption that what people say is indicative of what they actually think/do.