When we, as market researchers, interview customers we don’t just listen to what they say, but we also try to find out what they mean. The same should be true when we talk to clients about their priorities in terms of the research they commission. All too often, we read reports that say clients focus most on quality, then on relationships, and that speed and cost are important, but definitely quality rules. However, when we look at what people usually buy, it is clear that whilst quality is important, it is not the number one driver.
In my discussions with the buyers and users of research, I have employed probing, trade-offs and vignettes to unpick what seems to be the forces shaping clients’ paths to purchase. In most cases, this creates a different picture from the quality first picture reported by asking clients to rank lists.
The path to purchase is a system of check-gates, that collectively describe a common purchase situation.
- Is it good enough? Will the results enable me to make a better business decision? Clients often tell me research only needs to be 80% right, explaining that with their skill and knowledge they will be able to make the right decision.
- Is it affordable? There is only so much money available, and the pressure on that money gets ever more pressing. Clients tell me they can usually find the resources to pay 20% more to get the right solution, note they usually mean 20% more than the cheap option.
- Is it credible? Most organisations have a set of things they are willing to believe and a set of things that struggle to be believed. A good example is semiotics, some clients love it and believe it gets to the core of an issue; others simply do not get it. An insight manager is likely to avoid any approach that is going to struggle in terms of internal credibility.
- Is it a sufficiently smooth process? If the client has to source lots of materials (for example pack shots of lots of competitors to build a VR environment) the process is time consuming so the project may not be viable. If the results are complex and stakeholders need to learn something new to use them (for example how to use a What-if model) it may not be viable. If the project needs the client to coordinate with international teams in several locations, it may not be viable.
- Is it fast enough? This is often the key issue. Clients will consider something being 80% right, they will often find 20% more money if necessary, but late is useless – and late makes them look bad. The timing of research is often defined by the end user, not the insight manager, so the timing can be a fixed given.
If the insight manager finds that she/he has more than one solution that meets all the gates he/she will look at issues such as quality, innovation, excitement etc. If there are no viable solutions (after applying the check gates) the most common outcome, in my experience, is for the research not to happen, the next most common approach is to scale back the aspirations and to choose something that is not as good, but which can be delivered on time and is credible.
Repeat purchasing
In addition to all of the gates above, there are issues that relate specifically to repeat purchasing. In many ways this decision relates to two factors, 1) making the insight managers life more bearable, and 2) increasing their job security. Factors that underpin these two include:
- Engaged stakeholders. If the insight manager does not have to struggle to get stakeholders to attend debriefs (because the debriefs are perceived to be engaging and useful) his/her job is easier and more secure. If the deliverables are read by key stakeholders, because they are accessible, engaging and useful, her/his job is more enjoyable and secure.
- Smooth running. If the project ran smoothly, things happened on time, the there were no surprises from the agency, and the material did not need re-working, then the insight manager’s job was easier – and given that everybody is time poor this is important.
- Good relationship. If the insight manager enjoys working with an agency, if they feel secure with the team who are delivering to them, then they are likely to stick with them.
- Evidence of ROI. Insight managers are under increasing pressure to deliver ROI. If the agency can help design the research so it delivers evidence of ROI, that makes then easier to use again.
As an agency, trying to work our why you wonderful research solution that is twice as good as the opposition is not being commissioned in the volume expected, they can check these gates above to see if they are even being seriously considered.
