Survey Software, Web Survey, Online Surveys, and Enterprise Feedback Management solutions from Vovici

Your email:
   

Welcome to the Listening Post!

Your single source for everything Voice of the Customer (VoC) and Customer Experience (CxP). And, don’t forget you can follow us on twitter @vovici, or come check us out on Facebook and join the Vovici Network on LinkedIn.

 

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Consumers Don't Want to Hear from Social Media Researchers, Unless...

 

social media commentsJay Owens raises some good questions about my recent post on the attribution of social media comments in research reports:

Why couldn't you just ask the participants, "Would it be ok if I quoted what you said here in this report I'm writing for ____?" You show them what you want to quote, and you explain what the research will be used for. It's easy enough to message someone on Twitter to ask this, and bulletin boards usually have a private messages channel. 

Surely informed consent is a possibility? Am I missing something? I can’t understand why this wasn’t mentioned. It won’t bias responses because you’re asking for permission after the comment/statement has been made. If people refuse to give you permission to quote them, then that’s got to be respected, and if they want to be anonymised you can agree how to do that.   

The issue of contacting consumers is a complex one. On the one hand, consumers don’t want to be contacted by market researchers. On the other hand, consumers want researchers to ask permission before using their quotes.

In the Vovici social media listening survey, we asked 426 U.S. online consumers which groups it was acceptable to be contacted by. Coming in dead last of the seven groups we asked about was independent market researchers, which only 15% of respondents wanted to be contacted by. Since consumers were twice as receptive to being contacted by the organization’s researchers, presumably if they make a comment about an iPad they’d rather hear from Apple researchers than from third-party researchers. Still, the majority would rather not hear from any researchers at all:

  • “I'm entitled to my own opinion without some media marketing research using or interfering with my comments, and wanting to make a big deal out of it, good or bad.”
  • “It could lead to less comments if people think they may be hassled by the researchers.”
  • “Marketing agencies have been contacting the consumers to advertise there items by using social networks and interfering with the enjoyment of the people using it.”

contacting consumers

When we then asked consumers if they would rather have researchers ask for permission before reporting their comments, or use their comments without contacting them, to my surprise – given that they didn’t want to be contacted by researchers in general – 85% of consumers wanted the researchers to seek their permission.  Why?

  • Sadly, consumers fear market researchers will willfully misinterpret their responses.
    • “I don't know if my comments/opinions may be twisted to fit what the researcher needs.”
    •  “[I dislike] the idea that comments that I make could be taken out of context to support a product or position that I don't personally support.”
    • “The comments may be taken out of context to produce the opposite of what I intended.”
  • Others fear researchers will get it wrong through incompetence.
    •  “They [researchers] sometimes take things out of context and should always contact the person before using their comments.”
    • “I do see a lot of negative in discussion.  So you would have to contact the commenter to make sure you understand.”
    • “I don't like when only half of a comment or story is used. It seems unfair and can be harmful.”

How to net this out? Consumers don’t really want to talk to market researchers about their comments, but if push comes to shove, they will talk to researchers to make sure that their comments aren’t misrepresented (intentionally or not).

These attitudes remind of why I dislike hearing social media research framed as “online ethnography”. In an actual ethnographic study, you’ve recruited participants and given them some neutral background on the research you are doing – they have consented to have you watch them and ask them questions. In social media research, consumers’ comments aren’t intended for market researchers, and the consumers would prefer not to be contacted. They are only willing to be contacted if you reporting their comment because they don’t trust you to get it right. It’s not really analogous to ethnographic research.

So, Jay, you can certainly ask people who contributed key quotes for permission to use them. Many will ignore the request and others will decline, but some will give permission, clarify their remarks and provide further background. I’d do it rarely, and only for key quotes. Do we really want to go back to shoving clipboards in people’s faces at malls? Because that’s what this is starting to feel like.

See also:

Comments

Jeffrey, your points about ethnography and issues with social media are well-founded. I get equally irritated by well-intentioned but highly misguided folks employing ethnography with no training. They think ethnography is just interviewing or asking questions without understanding the nuance or employing the discipline that must exist in the methodology (not to mention awareness of ethical issues that will likely arise).  
 
Two key concepts lost to so many people are rapport and relationship. I wager one reason why you received those paradoxical results was an absence of relationship between researcher and participant. Ethnographers have to develop relationships with their participants in order to get more honest insight into their beliefs, viewpoints, and cultural underpinnings. Without building the necessary rapport, consumers will continue to hold these feelings about how they want their opinions used by researchers who are - by definition here - complete strangers.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:43 AM by Chris Bailey
So the 4th item in that graph shows that even other members of the community which they posted their remark to, can't comment acceptably as far as 75% of these respondents are concerned? 
 
This sounds less like a "community" and more like an echo chamber. Taking a step back and trying to see the whole picure, I question whether most of the respondents were deeply involved in the "community" askpect of whatever "online communities" were studied. 
 
 
 
It seems to me that's a missing piece in the whole discussion of whether monitoring this message traffic can be used as research: Is what you're monitoring heartfelt and meaningful? How would you demonstrate that? 
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, July 28, 2010 9:03 AM by Ian Straus
Ian - isn't there a difference between "comment on" and "contact"? The idea that 75% of people don't want other members to comment fails a sense-test for me too, but if they're imagining "contact" to mean "get in touch separate to the community" it makes more sense.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 28, 2010 9:55 AM by Tom
What a surprise to see my name mentioned at the top of this post! Really interesting to see my questions followed up and thank you - I currently work in social research so wouldn't have been able to test this issue myself. 
 
@Ian Straus: 
My reading of the question was that Vovici were asking respondents about comments they'd made on social networking sites, e.g. Facebook or Twitter (would BBS's count?) On these sites users have a community within their circle of friends/followers/acquaintances, but the vast majority of other network users are strangers. That is, Facebook as a whole is not a community. 
 
So perhaps the results to that question could be seen as 25% of people saying they don't want Twitter/FB members they don't know getting in touch following something they've said publicly on that site. That makes sense to me - it's the complete opposite of how I use Twitter, to be sure, but it's not far from the expectation I have of Facebook.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:49 AM by Jay Owens
Jeffrey, 
 
I think this is more of an issue in terms of the market research industry, than specifically utilizing SM for MR. The fact that there is that skepticism and fear of misrepresentation deliberately points out the current positioning of the research industry in which we reside. 
 
SM brings a whole slew of transparency not only to the brand and organization level, but to the MR field as well. Previously, we have resided in a very secretive landscape and somewhat rightfully so, but now that is beginning to evolve. Researchers need to help position our industry as an advocate to the the consumer population. The link between their voice and their wants and needs and the companies able to satisfy them. Once that is correctly implemented and the stigma around MR has changed, I guarantee you people will be comfortable with researchers listening and engaging, at least with the MR companies that build those trusted friends....after all they are voluntarily sharing their thoughts and opinions in a public forum, knowing others are listening. "Influencers" are influencers by choice because they like being influential. Influencers in the SM realm have built trust and following, and MR companies will soon follow their lead in order to be successful in this new space.  
 
Additionally, @ChrisBailey's comments on relationships and rapport are so very true. We do ourselves a great disservice by incorrectly utilizing the SM realm for MR. Instead, for those of us that are forming true relationships and trust with people (notice I didn't say respondents)we are providing a great value to both the consumers and the companies. In that aspect we are being neither intrusive or inflammatory in our analysis, as long as we hold true to commonly accepted and ethical research guidelines and principles. 
 
I think those that go against utilizing SM for MR and engaging people, are misunderstanding of its value or process and may not know how to correctly build rapport and trust in this new setting. Its also unfortunate that those who go about implementing SM in MR in incorrect or intrusive ways are not only tarnishing the value of SM, but impacting the overall perception of our industry.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:17 PM by Ben Smithee
Thanks so much for all the comments. 
 
Ian, perhaps this context would help. The questions were prefaced with, “Assume you make a comment about a product or service on the Internet,” so they are not about all types of comments. I crosstabulated the results by the types of community they find it acceptable to be contacted in. The communities where they were most willing to discuss comments with other members were on their blog or in an online news group – they were least willing to discuss product comments on Facebook or LinkedIn. 
 
Tom, you raise a good point. I’m not sure how respondents interpreted “contact” – whether they think of it as through the site or outside the site. 
 
Jay, you’re welcome – I originally planned on touching on some of these issues, but realized they were worthy of their own post. Only 19% of Facebook users were willing to be contacted about product/service comments on Facebook, 21% of LinkedIn users on that site, and 32% of Twitter users on Twitter. 
 
Ben, thanks so much for tackling the broader issue of perceptions of the market research industry. I like your optimistic view of the future!
Posted @ Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:33 PM by Jeffrey Henning
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics

Latest Posts

Loading
What's New
Get on the Path to Customer Experience Success
VoC on Twitter
Verint Blog
Verint Blog: Read the Latest from the Verint Systems Blog