A few of my recent posts have concentrated on the image of the "Market Research Industry", and the positioning challenge we all have in bridging the gap between perception (often not positive) and what I'd call "reality" - exciting, innovative, a discipline on the move.

The focus was on Buyers, Users, Sponsors, Influencers, Suppliers - people currently actively involved in Research.

But what about the "Non-User" group? Companies or pockets within companies that could commission Research but don't?

Doing no research at all is potentially the largest and most important White Space out there. With the advent of new technologies, my guess is that expanding MR's "penetration" might be one area of significant growth in future. After all - who can not benefit by listening and observing the users of a Company's products?

What's holding non-users back? What are the barriers?

Here's my take:

1. Budget Perceptions.

For many smaller companies, charities, start-ups, doing research is something that many feel is too expensive to even consider going outside for.

Even in companies that do have a MR budget, it often happens that the desire to do research is not met by the budget available.

We need to address this - being flexible, exploring available databases, looking to DIY tools, help something to be done rather than nothing. Just saying - oh well, your budget doesn't stretch, I can't help, is a counterproductive answer.

2. Timing Pressures.

Who's not experienced it - the rush job, topline needed yesterday, so to speak.

But in how many cases does the potential rush job morph into a "there's no time to do it" project - so cancelled.

If marketing hasn't left enough time to adequately scope a brief, or allow Research to shape an appropriate design, and all the other key research steps, then it puts huge pressure on, with the danger of corners being cut.

Reaching out at the right time in the yearly operational planning cycle to Senior Marketing folk and asking them to build in MR time for major initatives is key.

3. Fear of "The Truth"

Market research is an extremely powerful tool - it's without an Agenda, and often respected as an neutral Decision making source by highest level Management. This can easily be perceived as a threat to folk at operational Marketing and Sales level.

This one's difficult to address, in my view. It's rooted in the decades old mantra that Research can be a destructive but blunt instrument - especially in the field of creativity.

4. Lack of Understanding

Outside of the Marketing department, which parts of the Organisation are aware of the ins-and-outs of what Research can and can't do?

5. Absence of Marketing.

Companies that don't have a strong Marketing culture, a CMO maybe, are driven by Sales, Finance, or Operational folk - many of whom are not likely to have been exposed to market research. Tbey may well be more driven by prejudice than experience, which may work against us.

Reaching out across Boundaries is valuable - 1-on-1 sessions with Non-Marketing folk can help them understand what Research does, how it impacts, what value it brings.

The above isn't by any means exhaustive.

The message we (Client Side and Agency) should convey is clear: doing some research is better than doing none. Research is invariably extremely useful if done intelligently, on however small a scale. It can be fun. It doesn't need to cost the earth. And it can happen pretty quickly.

Maybe we need to think in terms of "Bite size Insights" - small, cost-effective pieces of Research that act as appetisers to folk putting their toe into the MR pond.

And maybe we should take every opportunity to document all the instances where Research's input significantly enhanced the Success of a given Project. Success has many Fathers - we need to be identified as one of them.

Curious, as ever, as to others' views.

This post was first published on Quirks' Industry e-newsletter, 21 May 2012

Market Research is undergoing an "exciting" phase of change - the "survey" is under attack as a shallow method of accessing people's real opinions, many new tools are being actively promoted to provide different, more authentic angles.

Innovation is all around us, which is a healthy sign.

But are we in danger of assuming that just because something is new it's better? Similarly, are we in danger of ditching the "MR baby with the bathwater" when we engage in what sometimes feels like radical renewal?

Here's my take: 

1. We neglect methodological rigour at our peril. That's what we're respected for. Validation of any new technique is critical. To quote Andrew Ehrenberg (http://bit.ly/I2LwcF)

"A result can be regarded as routinely predictable when it has recurred consistently under a known range of different conditions."

Research-on-research is essential to understand what differences new data collection modes - such as mobile - make. I applaud those  who engage in such efforts.  

2. It's generally recognised that MR needs to shift from being Data Provider to Insights Advisor, with an ability to create a compelling data narrative. This new skill set means that we are attracting people from outside the "core" industry - folk from Marketing, PR, Advertising are increasingly occupying senior MR positions, Agency and Client-side.

This is great. However, none of us should forget that a great narrative is only as powerful as the robustness of the data and the methdology behind it. Better be perceived as boring than wrong or misleading.

3. There is a huge pressure on budgets on the one hand, but on the other a recognition that gaining a balanced understanding of a given perceptual situation might well actually require more budget to handle a mixed-modal approach.

The onus is on us all to find ways to carefully reduce unnecessary cost and manage understanding of risk.

4. DIY research is a trend that's in all likelihood here to stay. I view this positively - it allows more companies to do more research. However, bad DIY research can be very misleading.

Understanding what "good" research practice is versus "bad" is important, and educational efforts such as those done by Kathryn Korostoff, Annie Pettit and Ray Poynter are to be applauded. I miss Jeffrey Henning's excellent blogs from his time at Vovici. 

5. Many of the existing arsenal of tools in MR rely on direct questioning. Done sensitively, there's definitely a role for that in my view -  Customer Satisfaction, Brand Tracking, Concept testing, for example. Access to historical databases and norms allow one to upweight or downweight sensitively and accurately as required.

As it becomes increasingly possible to introduce Context into this equation - via Mobile, for example - and we embrace ways of using visuals as a counterbalance to words in our Survey design, then direct questioning becomes potentially even more powerful.

6. Experts may not always (or often) be right - neither is an "Amateur" perspective.

It's modish to attack "expert opinion" - blinkered, not moving with changing circumstances, narrow in focus. I'm indeed a fan of boosting the role of intuition, gut reaction and referencing broader audiences early on in any MR process - but as a basis for forming a hypothesis that requires validation, not as a substitution.

It's commonplace to say that MR tools are becoming commoditised, that we should concentrate on the Impact not the Method.

Yes, the days of Black Box modelling seem largely behind us. But that doesn't mean the role of Advanced Analytics is finished - on the contrary. The people who have the expertise and experience in helping Marketing folk (and many in Insights as well)  leverage the power of sophisticated analytic techniques are extremely valuable.

I enjoy refreshing my fundamental understanding of both basic and advanced Stastistical Techniques as much and as often as I can - it's empowering and invigorating. It's just not something I talk about much - in the interests of maintaining my current circle of friends.....;) - which in a way is one of our conundrums as an industry.

Curious, as ever, as to others' views.

This blog was first published on Quirks' blog

It's my birthday today - and in the eyes of many, an important one too.

So many people who knew this "big day" was approaching asked me how I would feel, celebrate.....

Well, here's a random selection of thoughts and thanks:

1. Thanks to Google - http://bit.ly/HDIAxs - I now know that I share the same birthday as Robert Doisneau, the famous French photographer - http://bit.ly/2xIZnI

2. Thanks to Ad Age and the Andrew EhrenBerg Institute - http://bit.ly/HQRiYI - I now know that less than 1% of the Fans of major Facebook brands engage in meaningful activity such as sharing or comments.

3. One things leads to another - I discovered the Ad Age article thanks to Twitter and @kristofdewulf , CEO of Belgium based InsitesConsuting who tweeted it to my attention in the first place.

4. Thanks to medicine and advances in life expectancy - http://bit.ly/V5XqO - which are allowing me to think rather fluidly about the concept of ageing ;) and less like Francois Villon in his famous opening line of Le Testament - http://www.poetic.ch/villon.swf.>

I've just finished reading a piece in the UK Daily Telegraph of 7th April 2012 where Research comes in for another public bashing. You can read  it here - http://tgr.ph/ImiVMD

Journalist Janet Daley attacks Research as used by politicians in shaping policy. She lambasts the discipline as "pseudo science" and the methods used as bias-prone and incapable of capturing the compexity and fluidity of actual opinion.

It's high profile stuff - the Daily Telegraph has a considerable readership in the UK - and uniquely negative about MR - albeit political MR, but the message is bound to have halo effect.

I don't remember reading this kind of intensely negative writing about MR 10 years ago. It's a clear concern, and one where I feel that there is a clear call to action. Here's my take:

1. We need to get the "New MR" story (eg Biometrics, Text Analytics, Ethnography, MROCs...the list is long)  out to a broad range of stakeholders to begin to put a positive spin on our profession. Currently, perceptions of our activity are often narrow and focussed on the traditional.

2. We need to accept that a re-branding exercise is needed, and this isn't just for a Linked In group - certain phrases are becoming toxic, others tired - Focus Groups, for example, sound dated.

Industry bodies need to lead the Charge.

3. PR is something that we need to make work for us. Too often, it's the PR agencies who effectively (if unwittingly) give us a bad image, by using "survey" work to support a story that then makes the more intelligent reader and possibly opinion-leader-cum-mulitplier suspicious methodologically.

4. We need to systematically avoid being put into the role of "Justifier" for somebody else's decision - the phrase "Research says so......" can be extremely grating, it sounds patronising and monochrome.

The strategic, lean-forward role of MR is as a facilitator - as in our role in innovation for example, or in helping interested consumers shape a Company's strategy or message via MROCs. This is fundamentally different from trad. MR methods.

5. Research needs to position itself strategically wherever possible. It's a powerful tool, and needs to be treated with care and managed by people who are comfortable with methodology . Put in the wrong hands and it's potentially lethal.

The onus here: we've got to aim for the credibility to give Strategic Advice at a Senior Level, meaning being conversant with a broad range of Business issues.

Much of the above concerns positioning and communication, areas we're maybe not expert at. But they're key for us - especially outside the narrow confines of our daily activities.

Managing our reputation is important as never before - it's likely that more "Research" rather than less will be pushed at "consumers" in future as the cost of implementation drops. We can't assume that the standard of research will rise, nor that Quality Control will be universally possible, so need to prepare for a potential backlash.

On the positive side, the more our arsenal of new, powerful Research tools becomes known, the more likely we are to compete for attention, and become perceived as an energised, exciting industry that is on the move. It's not a bad place to be - but we need to manage the mindset on the way there.

Curious, as ever, as to others' views.

I was recently lucky enough to be given a copy of the February 2012 issue of Admap ( -http://bit.ly/p6l6I7)  thanks to the folk at Warc (http://bit.ly/qnk2m) - and spent some time leafing through it.

I was impressed - by the mix of content offered, but notably by the quality of thinking and writing. The actual focus of this issue was Branded Entertainment, but no more than about a third of the issue was dedicated to it.

The rest was a mixed bag of highly topical articles, including an excellent piece from J. Walker Smith from The Futures Company ( http://bit.ly/4WULAh) on trends for global brands, a great "myth busting" piece on Social Media marketing from Les Binet and Sarah Carter of DDB (http://bit.ly/Huw5s8) , and an interesting article on Semiotics from Dr. Kishore Budha of the University of Leeds. There was more.

An exciting mix - and one I think MR can learn from. Here's my take:

1. Admap describes itself as "Ideas and evidence for marketing people". The articles I read all had one thing in common: relevance to Marketing Strategy. Research needs to do that too - building on evidence, not just  focussing on it, linking to impact.

2. Planners in Advertising Agencies (quite a few of the contributors to this Admap issue are planners) have the task of linking insights to the creative product. Whether or not this particular breed is in good shape, the thought is correct - Research needs to link Insights to "something". Whether it's innovation, product design, social media strategy.....tools that are directly linked to sales impact.

Increasingly, insights are going to be so readily available (google's very recent foray into MR indicates a real sea-change could be underway)  that the focus on tangible value-add needs to increase.

3. Our main publication vehicles and industry bodies need to energise themselves, in my opinion, with perspectives from the "creative fringes" of research: trend forecasting, innovation agencies, design agencies, media planning for example.

Cross-fertilisation is invariably a powerful tool. Energy often arises at the intersection of related disciplines.

4. Good writing is a skill that can transform the apparently bland  into something more startling. Take the opening paragraph of  Molly Flatt's article (p. 13, Admap Feb. 2012): "If you prefer imparting information to opening a conversation, you must be a monologue-obsessed PR machine". Her actual topic: Social Media.

Great writing enthuses. How often do we manage that in Research? If we don't have the skills ourselves - similar to Infographics, in my view - we should either train/ practice, or maybe reach out and hire talent. Ms. Flatt  is just an example, there are plenty of gifted journalists working freelance.

5. Visual presentation has a large perceptual impact. Admap is pretty cerebral, lots of word-heavy articles - but check out the front cover, and you see that whilst certainly not exceptional in design terms, it's conceptual. Just one example  - http://bit.ly/H5eWpG

Contrast this to the cover of the March 2012 issue of Research Live - we see R.I.P. writ large. Depressing - and not conceptual at all.

6. Thought leaders, academics, business authors  from the increasingly merging worlds of psychology, philosophy, economics, trends, semiotics are powerful forces, that have the ability to capture the imagination and attention at the highest level of Business. 

Research needs to define itself more broadly, embrace the most exciting thinkers into our fold. We need to infuse our thinking with that of related fields.

Behavioural Economics isn't the only "hot topic" out there.

Summa summarum: conceptual intelligence, the ability to think laterally, link different aspects together - these are some of the hallmarks of great thinking. Can research offer this?  Great planners (in all likelihood working in Communication Agencies in English speaking contexts) would pride themselves on these kind of abilities.

It's something I think we Researchers could  learn from. We don't all have to work in Advertising, but we should all aspire to great thinking, surely. And if that means balancing the lateral with the literal, then so be it.

Curious, as ever, as to other's views.

Some of you may recall a recent blog of mine lamenting the rather poor image painted of Market Research in the March 2012 issue of The Harvard Business Review.  I read on today, same issue, different article  - and much to my irritation, the same general negative picture of MR appeared, but with further negative nuances.

The gist was as follows: Research as the enemy of innovation, as shown in a fictitious Case Study. A  Board Member responsible for Innovation is challenging a traditional Company to develop a breakthrough technology, and meets resistance. One roadblock: Market Research, portrayed as a gain-sayer that simply can't see "the big picture" - in this case, the potential of breakthrough innovations.

A well rehearsed theme - Research as the enemy of creativity and innovation.

Hmm. I'm a little tired of being part of an industry that serves as a convenient punch bag. Isn't it time for the MR Empire to strike back?

What's lacking?

Well, here's my hypothesis: we have a great product with a poor image. We're in urgent need of a facelift - a classical re-positioning exercise, if you like.

And maybe we need Marketing techniques and tools to go about it.

Let's imagine our industry were a product - what we do to rejuvenate it? How would we diagnose ourselves?

A SWOT analysis would help, a positioning statement, a Marketing plan, budget and timing.

I'm not going to go into all that a full Marketing programme would ential - but I'd like to touch on one issue crucial to any Marketing Plan: Audience definition.

Who is our Target Audience? It's broader, in my view, than just MR Agencies and Clients.

Here's my take:

1. We have multiple audiences.

We need to think way beyond the Client-side Researcher / Supplier paradigm. "Talking amongst ourselves"  isn't going to get us very far, even if it gives a feel-good factor.

2. CMOs are a relevant audience we do too little to influence collectively. The same is true of General Managers. Budget allocations happen at the top of organisations - we need to ensure we're well regarded at this level.

3. Influential advisors matter. Analysts, consultants, Advertising Agencies, CFOs - all are vital audiences. What are we doing to reach them with our "message"?

4. Sales folk. We neglect the role of Sales at our peril. VOC is often an ambiguous acronym - who is "the customer"? Trade partners are critical influencers within any organisation.

5. Trend Agencies. Another influential group we don't engage with enough, in my view.

6. Universities. The role of influential Marketing Professors is undeniable.

7. Editorial staff of influential Business and Marketing magazines. There are plenty of them around, all with their own needs and Agendas.

There are more - University students,  the General Public are two that spring to mind.

What do these audiences a) know about us and b) think about us?  Do we have a good understanding of relevant Touch points? What's our Messaging Matrix? Tool Definition?

What are we doing to manage our Image outside of our narrow confines?

Not enough, I would say. Individual efforts are fine, and I know of plenty of examples where MR is extraordinarly well perceived. But I don't see the wider community picture, concerted efforts to engage in influence marketing - and I'd love us to have the Reputation we deserve as an energetic, intelligent, innovative industry.

Curious, as ever, as to other's views.

A couple of articles I've read recently from the Advertising Industry on Behavioural Economics (BE) and Cognitive Bias made me wonder (again) if Market Research as an industry is doing a good job at managing this hot topic.

Snippets from Rory Sutherland''s interview in Research Live August 2011 - http://bit.ly/ndwyfE -  are often quoted, notably the metaphorical description of  the rational part of the brain not being the President in the Oval office, rather the press department issuing post-rationalisations. Great turn of phrase, eminently quotable and memorable.

What is less quoted from this same article is the claim that one answer to the challenges of Behavioural Economics  is - wait for it - a lot of advertising. I quote:

"The most important thing is that a person remembers your brand as having done a lot of advertising"

Excuse me? Beyond the complexities of heuristics, cognitive biases of all shapes and sizes, the answer is......more advertising?? Isn't this a tad self-supporting?

Tempting here to quote Mandy Rice-Davies of Profumo affair fame: "Well, he would say that wouldn't he?"

Much of the article is taken up with stressing the rights and wrongs of the research industry - which given the apparent audacity of this own self-serving plug seems to me a bit rich, coming from somone who as far as I know has never actually worked in a pure research position.

Second article is in the March 2012 issue of Admap (I only have a hard copy),  a piece by Neasa Cunniffe and Mark Sng of Rainey Kelly Campbell/Y&R on the topic of Confirmation Bias.

Their central thesis: the stronger the emotional bond to a brand, the stronger the effect of  confirmation bias. The internet simply represents information overload, people resort to using shortcuts. Their suggested solution? I quote: "Advertising plays a crucial role here...."

Remarkable. Rather than delve into the complex, iterative processes in making a decision with multiple information sources and recommendations availalabe in blogs, forums, comments sections, or evaluating WOM as a potentially powerful tool,  they take the comfort route back to "advertising".

This particular article deconstructs itself too easily. The authors themselves - working in advertising - suffer badly from confirmation bias, but sadly don't build this meta-reflection into their piece.

BE poses plenty of challenges to the whole of the Marketing world, MR included. - we need to come up with some strong, easily remembered arguments that show we embrace BE, and importantly how we respond to it.

Here's my take:

1. Multi-modal research is increasingly commonplace to get a full perspective on how decisions are made at the various stages of deliberation.  This can involve watching, asking people - engaging them in self-reporting, before & after an "event" using both qual. & quant. components.

2. Observational techniques  in research have played a strong role for decades.

3. Immersion style investigation - call if ethnography if you dare - is increasingly prevalent.

4. Conjoint - or choice-based techniques such as Max-Diff - mirror trade-offs made in real life, allow us to access derived rather than stated importance, for example.

5. Eye-tracking allows us to see precisely where visual attention goes - be it in-store, looking at packaging design, or web sites, to name a few.

6. Marketing mix modelling helps us optimse promotional expenditure decisions - part of the MR fold, surely.

7. Mobile research techniques can allow a high degree of authenticity and immediacy.

There's plenty more.

Finally, just because it's not easy for us to access the non-rational components of our decision making process, doesn't necessarily mean that asking direct questions has no role in research at all. We ask people questions in qualitative research all the time. Facilitators of workshops by necessity ask direct questions. There are plenty of other examples - including quantitative research.

So: my "direct" question to anyone reading this: if BE is creating a lot of discussion amongst Marketing folk, are we doing a good job of  showing we've got more than adequate methodologies and tools in response?

We need to blow our own trumpets more, unashamedly. Perception and reality are fluidly interlinked.

Curious, as ever, as to others' views.

I've been invited to give a talk at the upcoming Amsterdam Conference "Market Research (MRMW) in the Mobile World Europe"  from 18 - 19 April, 2012 - http://bit.ly/wzCu6t

The focus of my talk will be the Client perspective: what role for mobile, what issues I see, what boxes it has to tick, how it fits into a toolkit. Does the rapid uptake in smartphones and tablets mean we can anticipate a similar uptake in the willingess and desire of people to engage in mobile surveys? Will it appeal to difficult to reach audiences - younger audiences maybe?  How will it affect impact client-side?

Question I'm pondering as I shape the narrative - how can I maximise the take-home value for attendees?

Too often I witness speakers at Conferences giving papers that don't result in any audience questions - they are effectively monologues. It can be a little dull.

In an attempt to change that and increase the level of relevance and engagement, here's what I propose for my Amsterdam talk:

1. I will dedicate a section of my talk to addressing questions posted in advance by attendees. How exactly I build in these issues in will depend on the nature and number of questions I receive.

2. Attendees can send me wish-lists of things they'd like to see discussed over the coming 5 days (deadline: March 9, 2012).

3. I will give as full and honest an answer to as many questions as possible, within the constraints of Company Confidentiality and timing restrictions.

4. If I refer to a question specifically, I will do so without naming the person and company who raised that question.

5. My feedback on the questions will be limited by what I say in my talk  - I (alas) won't be responding to emails with 1-on-1 answers.

If nobody poses questions to me prior to the event, fine. If I'm overwhelmed by questions, I'll do my best to cover off as many as possible.

So if you're attending the MRMW Conference, give me your name and contact details in the comment section of this blog, I'll reply privately with contact details (once I've verified that you are actually an Attendee and as fast as I can manage), so you can send me your questions confidentially.

Curious, as ever, as to other's views and inputs on this collaborative effort.

Tip for suppliers: think beyond methodology when addressing client needs. How will they make their decision - what are the crucial factors? What will it take to win the business?

Do we need to worry about our reputation of the Market Research industy? I would give a resounding "Yes" as an answer. Two recent examples from the Harvard Business Review reinforced this belief.

Firstly: the "HBR Tip of the Day" (an App on my SmartPhone) for 27 Feb. 2012 shocked me - it was about "Put Yourself in the Customer' Shoes", and the first sentence read:

"If your company is looking to innovate, don't waste time analyzing market research reports and delving into data. What customers say they will do is not necessarily what they end up doing. Instead, put yourself in the customers' shoes" (my italics)

The main message of the piece -  to get senior executives out observing customers first hand - was fine.

It's the first bit (quoted above) that I found worrying: suggesting that market research reports are

a) not worth reading and

b) pace Behavioural Economics not reliable in any case.

Secondly: an article from the March 2012 hard copy edition of the Harvard Business Review, entitled "The CEO as Mystery Shopper"

The article is by the CEO of Office Depot, and relates how, when he first became CEO, sales were going down but Customer Satisfaction values were excellent. To right things, he visited 70 stores personally in the US to get a close-up view.

His take on MR: the Customer Sat. survey method was great, but they were asking the wrong questions. MR had evaluated things that didn't matter to customers at all. He quotes that the research had covered the issue of whether the customer felt the toilets were clean  - and pointed out that nobody cared about that issue.

We need to care about these kind of articles: opinion leaders read HBR.

Here's my take:

1. MR needs to get into the front line, up close and personal, just like the CEO quoted. How many interviews have we client-side researchers conducted ourselves, how many Mystery Shopper interviews have we done? Credibility and reputation are soft but important factors.

2. We need to demonstrate the value of "reports" - re-cut the data, share it with customers and those in the front line. Link up with some impact-related goals.

3. We need to make sure that we're not asking the wrong questions - so maybe time to review and adjust on some longer standing ongoing quant. surveys such as Brand Trackers and Customer Satisfaction. Time to do some qual. work exploring consumers' issues and priorities.

4.  Industry Bodies need to represent us well, put across a good picture of who we are: engaged, contemporary, on top of modern technologies, attuned to what's going on in society and at a market level. Engaging positively with influencers and opinion leaders.

5. MR suppliers need to explore how best to shape report-outs so they do NOT end up in a drawer, forgotten. That can be any number of things: reporting out collaboratively, exploring ways of enticing customers of dipping into the data after project complete, for example.

6. We all need to ask ourselves: just because we did it this way before, does that make it right? Change is happening fast, so simply using history as a justifier can be comforting but weak.

Finally, maybe we need some sort of rapid rebuttal unit. We need to actively manage media relations.

I'm conscious that many MR Suppliers may read the above and think - how can I impact on that? I'd say - next time you have a chance to informally chat with your Clients, ask them what they think, and what you might do to contribute.

In short: we need to at the very least to protect ourselves. I've taken up contact with the Editor of the HBR for starters.

Curious, as ever, as to others' views.

What's the longest discussion post on MR Linked In Groups you can recall?

For me it's the one about "What's an Insight" by a mile - loads of definitions, loads of contributions. Over 800 comments last time I checked.

The more I read it, the more it grated, everyone coming up with a definition, no-one taking much notice - next please. Popular, but dare I say it - without import.

But what is this thing called Insights?

Increasingly I think it's got a bit above itself, whatever it is - all promising - the Holy Grail of any research project, the one thing that will potentially transform a business or opportunity.

Despite the myriad of case studies hawked around by suppliers of all shapes and hues, who can really hold up their hand and say - that was it, that was the thinking that changed the business?

Before the event, and without the wisdom of hindsight?

If we're not careful, we'll fall into the category of "The Big Idea" - much vaunted, but often tantalisingly distant.

I'd like to put a different concept on the virtual table: Micro Insights

These are

• tiny
• specific to a situation/context/person
• eminently describable
• intuitive of something else that many others have experienced - give you the "Aha" feeling.
• changing all the time

We live in a rapidly changing world. It's impossible to plan sensibly any more, obliquity is to me at least an intuitively correct concept. We change our minds. Circumstances change. The weather changes. Our mood changes. Our friends move on, our social context changes. We read different comments and opinions on the web.

To quote John Kay (http://bit.ly/fjJutx) : "Obliquity is characteristic of systems that are complex, imperfectly understood, and change their nature as we engage with them." Ring any bells?

Change is indeed a constant - with authorities as diverse as Montaigne (Livre III/ Chap. 2: Du Repentir - eg first paragraph http://bit.ly/yhBJph ) and McKinsey (Consumer Decision Journey/ http://slidesha.re/hxKT18) all highlighting challenges of pinpointing insights.

Insights have to take both the microscopic and "change" into account in equal measure. We can and should only describe precisely what we see in front of us. And that alone is fascinating and can lead to x number of hypotheses.

Plenty of Qualitative Researchers would read the above and say - Yeah, so? MROCs give you insights 24/ 7, for example.

I'd say it's the magnifying glass approach to empiricism that we need to embrace, heightened attention to detail. Details count.

We need to learn to love the microscopic, and crawl our way through to what we believe to be a narrative of the micro-observed.

True of something, but nothing more than that. Humbling.

As a Montaigne fan, I'd like to quote the great man on how he viewed the task of observing and describing what he saw around him, again from the Essais, Livres III/ Du Repentir:

"Je ne puis assurer mon objet. Il va trouble et chancelant, d’une ivresse naturelle"

 I'm going to touch on the challenge of the overabundance of insights in my next blog.

Curious, as ever, as to others' views.

Suppliers' Tip: Try to include examples, quotes, pictures from your research in an imaginative way as possible. Bring your presentation alive, add to its authenticity.