The 12 Marketing Research Myths
There are many myths about
marketing research which limit and constrain its use. These myths are particularly damaging in
regards to quantitative business-to-business research where it is assume that
these intelligence gathering activities are appropriate only under the greatest
distress. We have selected 12 of these
that are among the grievous in that they tend to block the potential benefits
to the firm.
Note that
business-to-business markets have distinctly different characteristics from
consumer, packaged goods, markets. Most
of the “conventional wisdom” regarding marketing research tends to be derived
from hear-say from studies of these consumer markets. But even for these markets the myths are
still wrong.
1. Marketing research should only be
undertaken after the business problems have been fully scoped.
2. Marketing research needs to be focused on
a narrow single objective.
3. Marketing research provides a limited
snap-shot in time and has little long-term value.
4. Marketing research can remove all
uncertainty from marketing.
5. There are universally “Best” methods
(practices) for collecting and analyzing marketing research data.
6. Qualitative (VOC) and quantitative
research are competitive methods for collecting market intelligence.
7. Qualitative research (VOC) should never
be analytical.
8. Quantitative marketing research requires
large samples to be useful (significant).
9. Samples must always be random.
10.
Never use internal staff to do Marketing
Research
11.
Using the most “accurate” and complex
measurement is always the best.
12.
Quantitative marketing research is always
very expensive.
Marketing research is the
eyes of the business. Understanding the
market is critical for even formulating the problems. As such, marketing research must be a
continuing process. A business can not
wait for problems to be fully understood before exploring the marketplace. However, the better the business issues can
be identified the more effective the marketing research is likely to be. Market intelligence should be available to assist
with all business decisions.
Businesses never face a
single problem or issue. Businesses need
a broad range of marketing insight to help make the critical decisions. This is obtaining a “Pervasive Marketplace Awareness.” As such, excluding the
exploration of the full range of factors motivating customers and the structure
of the market is foolish and dangerous.
This is particularly true with quantitative b-to-b marketing
research. Providing only a part of the
insight does not solve the overall business problem. From a marketing perspective, there are
always four key issues that need action.
These are the four “P’s”: Product
Design, Pricing, Promotion, and Place
(Distribution). These issues always need
to be addressed and as such we always need market intelligence to help
determine the appropriate routes.
While the world does change,
it does so gradually. Marketing research
information is generally valid over a considerable time. As such, it should be considered a valuable
planning resource to be explored for seeking assistance with a broad range of
issues over time. It is an investment in
knowledge. The trick is to be able to
utilize it.
As there is “fog of battle”,
there is “fog in the marketplace”. No
amount of research can eliminate the total uncertainty. It can help assess the chances of success and
help guide development. But it can never
assure success. It represents market
structure and the opinions of potential influencers. But those opinions do not necessarily
determine what will happen in the market.
Product development is risky.
Market intelligence and insight reduces the risk but can never eliminate
it.
All data collection and
analysis techniques have benefits and disadvantages. They are all based on assumptions with
associated costs. As such, there are no
universally “best” methods applicable to all situations. However, there are some methods that do tend
to be more efficient and effective than others for business-to-business
marketing research. But even these will
not be applicable for all situations.
Qualitative (Voice of the
Customer) and quantitative marketing research are complementary tasks. They are never competitive. They should always be considered together
rather than separate undertakings.
Qualitative research answers the questions around the “What” of the
marketplace and Quantitative research answers the question of “How Much”. The
design of quantitative research requires knowledge of the market obtained
through understanding the “Voice of the Customer”. But without quantification, that knowledge is
only anecdotal.
Much qualitative research
(VOC) uses open-ended, subjective, questions as means of determining both the
scope of marketing and purchase issues and to understand the language
used. This is essential for exploring
the full range of issues and avoiding being “blindsided.” However, this does not exclude the use of
analytical methods and the ability to use these studies to provide some market
assessment. Particularly in the study of
business-to-business markets, it is useful to provide both types of
information. Furthermore, analytics can
be used effectively to classify respondents and understand their decision
processes that the respondents are not fully cognitive of.
Samples for quantitative
studies should be of the “correct” size.
It is more important that the sample is of quality; that is, that the
correct people are interviewed than that the sample is large. Usually with small populations, a higher precision
of the study can be obtained with a smaller sample. “Statistical significance” only reads on the
precision of averages. In most of the
b-to-b studies, we are far more interested in the distribution of values from
individuals. As such, small samples are
highly useful.
Samples for quantitative
study should be “representative”. In
b-to-b markets this is particular interesting in that their may be only a few
customers that represent the major portion of the business. All possible respondents are not equal. As such, a purely random sample is unlikely
not be representative. What is important
is to gather information from the most relevant respondents. In these cases a small sample may be better
than a large truly “random” one.
Using the sales force and
other internal staff for marketing research can introduce bias. As such, it has been traditionally frowned
upon. However, this is not the only source of error and excludes other
benefits. For Voice-of-the-Customer studies
seeing the customer and having direct business involvement has value,
particularly with on-site interviews.
With small sample size studies, particularly small international
surveys, using in place personnel can be very advantageous and greatly off-sets
the potential of bias.
For marketing research to be
effective the methods must be broad, accurate, and efficient. All methods contain sources of
inaccuracy. None are perfect and all
have some type of inaccuracy. The choice
should be a balance of the objectives to deliver the most “quality” market
insight feasible from studies. As such,
we start with the simplest methods and only add complications when their
advantages overwhelm the costs.
While b-to-b quantitative
marketing research should never be considered “cheap,” is should always be
considered affordable. Using appropriate
well targeted samples; using most appropriate measuring methods and modern
technology, the costs of the fielding modern b-to-b studies should be
sufficiently affordable to be a standard source of market intelligence.