Market Research Insights for Technology Companies

Scott Anthony recently advised, “In Market Research, Use Numbers with Caution.” He added, “Companies too frequently default to quantitative research because they think there is safety in numbers. It’s a lot easier to justify a strategy by saying, ‘The data suggests’ than by saying, ‘My intuition suggests.’ But sometimes numbers provide false confidence and obscure real opportunity.”

Anthony’s point of view is quite different than the point of view presented by Robb Mandelbaum, who recently said in Inc., “Given limited resources … it generally makes sense to go quantitative.”

Both articles are excellent  – and both present very different points of view.

So how do you choose between quantitative (surveys) and qualitative (focus groups, in-depth interviews) when performing market research projects with technology participants?

Sometimes, quantitative (surveys) research is better

1. When you need data to support a claim with investors, press, or internal stakeholders.  Dimensional Research has done a number of Web surveys that our customers have used for PR purposes, including these recent ones on anti-virus and desktop power management.

2. For trending purposes, quantitative studies are also the best.  Dimensional Research has a number of clients that follow the “Would you recommend this company to a friend?”  question promoted by HBR, and watch the responses to that trend over time.  It’s a great way to track trends in customer feedback.

3. Of course, if time is the greatest consideration and you need some kind of quick feedback – Web surveys have a big advantage.  The are FAST.

Sometimes,  qualitative (focus groups/in-depth interviews) research is better

Numbers can be deceiving and there is no better way to find that out than to talk live to people who give you numbers.  I was recently doing a competitive study, speaking to end users of a client’s competitor’s product.  My client, as is natural, was most interested in the negative feedback about the product.

So to introduce the topic of what was good and bad in the product, we started by asking the customers to rate the product being discussed on a scale of 1-5.  And of course, asked the important market research follow up question, “why?”

I was consistently surprised by users who had raved about the product, saying it was perfect and there was nothing they would change about it given the chance – and they’d assign a 3 out of 5.  And other users who basically spent the whole conversation whining and complaining about the product would give it a 5!

Numeric scales can be misleading and in these cases, qualitative studies such as focus groups or interviews are better.  I would always recommend qualitative studies when you are looking for thoughtful answers including:

-          Messaging validation for products that are new to the market

-          Market validation

-          Understanding objections and barriers

-          Product feedback for enterprise products (web surveys do a better job with consumer products that are simpler to understand)

Qualitative vs. quantitative is a good conversation to have with your market research provider – although of course you should understand their expertise. If you only have a hammer every problem is a nail, so expect a quantitative-focused research house to tell you to survey thousands of prospects, and someone who only does focus groups to emphasize qualitative approaches.

A good research firm will know if they don’t have a fit with your needs and will point you in a better direction.  For example, Dimensional Research does not do conjoint analysis, but we have a great partner that we can refer you to if that’s what you need.

Hal Varian, chief economist at Google recently said that the “the sexy job in the next 10 years will be statisticians”.

I think he’s right.  Every participant in a first-world economy should have a solid understanding of stats.  Not that I’m recommending that everyone become a statistician, but with the volume of information out there, it’s important to understand how data can be used to sway you.

Here are two “statistics” about my own life:

i) I was the only female graduate in Pure Mathematics at my university in my year  (true).

ii) 50% of my graduating class who majored in Pure Mathematics were women (also true).

One of those statements paints a picture of a mathematics education that is oppressive to women, somehow subtly driving females away.  The other paints a picture of a very progressive math department that gave women the same opportunities as men.

As I’m sure you’ve figured out, there were only two people in my graduating class that majored in Pure Mathematics.  But without that information, I could have easily mislead you. Clearly the statistical significance is not there.

When someone presents information, whether a market researcher or anyone else, always think about the reliability. What’s the methodology?  How big is the data set? Is the audience who completed the research the right audience to comment on the topic?  Is it representative?

Research bias is very real. You need to be aware of this and always ask the right questions in order to determine whether information presented to you is valid – whether selling enterprise software or listening to the media.

If you’re not confident that your anti-virus software is keeping you safe, you’re not alone.

Dimensional Research recently completed a study on anti-virus and anti-malware software, sponsored by CoreTrace.  The 226 IT professionals who completed the Web survey reported that  Corporate IT believes the threat from malware is increasing, but they don’t have confidence in existing blacklisting approaches to protect them.  Key findings include:

• 80% say threat from malware is increasing
• 74% do not have confidence in blacklisting anti-malware
• 66% concerned that blacklisting anti-malware is not effective on “day-zero” of a new attack
• 50% concerned about the impact of performance scans
• 80% say the idea whitelisting is compelling, but only 9% report using whitelisting approaches to anti-malware

You can find press coverage of the report from:

• DarkReading
• eWeek Security Watch

A full copy of the report is available for download here.

Dimensional Research completed a new study on Desktop Power Management, sponsored by KACE. I found this study particularly interesting because so much of the conversation about power management has talked about power management in the data center, with very little discussion about the impact of leaving desktop computers, monitors, and laptops powered on when not in use.

The study reveals an interesting opportunity here since most participants (93%) think desktop power management can reduce costs, but only 10% are using a commercially purchased solution to do this. The press has been covering this report, with some of my favorite stories here:

• InformationWeek’s bMighty (an interesting take for SMBs)
• ZDnet
• eWeek Europe

You can download a copy of the full report from: www.kace.com/resources/Desktop-Power-Management.

This blog post can be summed into one sentence: “I talked to some people I know” is NOT market research!

Of course you should talk to people you know about your ideas, but you need to ask yourself, who is your target market?

Will your drinking buddies ever buy your enterprise software?  Maybe they will, and count yourself fortunate if you play poker with only CIOs. But you probably interact with a lot of other people who are not actually in your target market.

It’s a good idea to get ideas from everyone, but you should put significantly more emphasis on feedback from the people who are actually part of the community you target.

It may be obvious that your high school buddy who runs his family’s (very successfull) car dealership doesn’t know enough about technology to give you feedback.

The really problematic conversations are usually the ones with people who are in the periphery of your target, just not IN it – people who sell to IT in other companies (especially ones with big established brands!), VCs who invest in tech companies, journalists and bloggers – even your fellow co-workers.

All of these people will have insights for you, and you should certainly pay attention to them, but you should never use the info you get from these people INSTEAD of having conversations with your actual target market, the people who will eventually buy your solution. They are the ones you really need to talk to.

If your day-to-day routine does not easily facilitate those conversations – make a point to make it happen.  Find those people and talk to them in a way that gets unbiased feedback. Any market research firm would be happy to help.

At Dimensional Research, we are big fans of social media. We blog here.  You can follow us on Twitter @DimensionalR. We’d love it if you fanned us on Facebook.

So what is the place of social media in market research? 

This is a topic that is constantly evolving as social media changes, but let me make one important observation about research bias. 

I think Twitter is an AMAZING way to get feedback from people who are on Twitter. The ways to interact and test are absolutely revolutionary and should be evaluated as a potential component of any company’s arsenal of feedback mechanisms. Now the question is - is my target market on Twitter? 

If you sell to corporate IT, I’m going to make a bold claim: Twitter is NOT the best way to get feedback from your target market! I’d argue that the people spending money on enterprise technology are particularly under-represented on Twitter.   (Now all the Tweeps can argue with me – please do!)

Using Twitter is a great way to reach the part of your target market that is on Twitter.  Maybe your early adopters are on Twitter.  And you may sell a solution that is more likely to be discussed on social media.  But caveats aside, think carefully about how your overall target market can be reached for feedback.

Bottom line: Know where your audience can be reached.  Execute market research that represents your entire audience – both the portion of it that is active on social media and the part that isn’t.

One of the real strengths of focus groups – in person or online – is the opportunity for a bunch of people to see a live discussion, and even ask a few additional questions.  (Yes, Dimensional Research always leaves a few minutes at the end of a focus group session for the observers to ask a follow-on question or three.) 

It can be extremely powerful to expose people who work in corporate roles and don’t get out into the field – marcom managers, R&D, developers, etc. – to direct customer and prospect feedback. Often operational people (finance, legal) pick up something important by watching their target market discuss their jobs.

 Dimensional Research always encourages as many people as possible to listen into focus groups, or to watch the videos that we record when they’re done.

 However, sometimes “listening in” is a bad idea. It basically boils down to this:  If you only see part of a project, don’t assume that’s all there is. There is a reason why you conduct 8 focus groups, not just one.  Or why you conduct 25 interviews, not just 3 or 4.

Don’t let these scenarios happen to you:

• Attend two focus groups in New York and project that experience onto Chicago, Paris, Singapore, and Tokyo.
• Listen in on only one call of a 20-call interview project.

If you decide to listen in on market research, I strongly recommend the following:

1. Do read the final report and attend the presentation of the report.  You might as well enhance your limited experience with the full power of the overall project.
2. Don’t attend just one focus group or listen in on just one call!

Real life example

We recently conducted a series of 15 customer interviews about a client’s new initiative. It has been progressing for about a year and they wanted to know what messages their customers had absorbed. We spoke to 15 of their very best customers – the kind who spend lots of money every quarter, attend the user groups, and give references. It was a good study, and very helpful in finding out what parts of the new initiative were gaining traction and what parts needed even more evangelism.

There was one of the 15 interviews where the participant absolutely “got” it. He could have given the company’s pitch, including now and vision, with no problem at all.  It was delightful.  However, he was the ONLY one of the 15 participants who did that. The rest of the participants clearly struggled with some of the visionary aspects of the messaging. As luck would have it, that was the only interview that one of the project stakeholders listened in on. Unfortunately, during the report presentation he kept interrupting to talk about how the market “really got it.” We had to very strongly emphasize that the whole project needed to be considered – not just this one guy. The company had plenty of work to do to reach their entire customer base. They were not done.

Focus groups are ideal when you want to gain multiple perspectives in an interactive group setting.

However, one of the things that can happen in focus groups is “group think.” The first person starts off on a tangent – good or bad – and then the entire room goes along with that first opinion. This is a dynamic that every good researcher is aware of. 

So does groupthink invalidate a focus group? Of course not, and in fact it can be very useful as long as you know it’s happening and stop it when necessary. Here are a few tips:

1. First, establish if group think is a good or a bad thing for your project.  Depending on your goals, group think can be a very bad thing. For example, in message testing you’re usually evaluating the kinds of pain/benefit statements that someone experiences in isolation. Groupthink is very damaging in that kind of environment because you end up seeing only one participant’s uneducated, unguided reaction to messages.  In this case, maybe focus groups are not the right medium – in-depth interviews or a Web survey may give you better results.
2. Remember that group think can be very good.  If you’re trying to brainstorm an idea, having somebody to kick off the conversation and then see where the group goes with it is a very good thing. A smart moderator will encourage this kind of thinking for a while and see where it goes. The most creative ideas from focus groups I’ve been in did not come from one single individual. They came from the group members inspiring each other to build off of each other’s experiences and ideas and come up with something more powerful than any of the individual input. When one participants says “what if …”, and then the next participant says “cool idea, but how about this…” and then yet another participant says “or even better, you could take that idea and try…”.  Now you’re cooking!
3. Be prepared to funnel groupthink.  When you see it happening, a good moderator will challenge the group with the opposite assumption.  Prompt some “group think” around the positive ideas, and then redirect the group to talk about the negative ideas. Insist that the group gives you multiple perspectives.

Above all – don’t be scared of negative group think! It’s very good to hear every possible objection your target audience can make about your solution BEFORE you start selling, so you can be prepared with the products, messages, and objection handling you need to be successful.

Negative feedback is good for you. 

Seriously.

While it’s very human to only want to hear how wonderful your solution is, you need to learn about any objections to your product NOW. Not later, when you have to deal with an entire slipped pipeline, because you didn’t realize there was a deal-breaker.

You need honest feedback, and you need it now.

But how do you ensure feedback that is real? Very few people, no matter how stupid they think your idea is, will actually tell you that. You have to create an environment that allows people to tell you about the downside. 

One of the more painful exercises you can go through is to put a group of people together in a focus group and ask “what DON’T you like about this solution?” Once you ask them this question, and give them permission to be brutally honest, they WILL tell you about everything they don’t like. And the list of things they don’t like will be very long. And their list will inspire the other participants to think about even more things that they don’t like.

But as I said, this is GOOD FOR YOU!  If you know about the objections, you can prepare for them in advance. In the long run, this will save you significant amounts of time and money.

The answer is “enough to represent your market.” This number varies significantly according to the type of market research you’re conducting.

Web Surveys

For Web surveys this is a pretty straightforward question to answer. You will use quantitative methods to determine a sample size.

There are standard ways to calculate statistical validity, and a very easy-to-use calculator and descrition of the underlying statistics can be found here. You can use it to determine how many people you need to respond to a quantitative study in order to get results that reflect your target population.

You will need to know the population size of your audience - the total number of people  in the group your sample represents. Even if you don’t know the exact population size, this is not really a problem. The mathematics of probability allows you to make a pretty good guess as long as you have some kind of basic idea. The number of participants needed is not linear. As your audience gets much larger, your sample size doesn’t increase very much.

For example, to get a result that is accurate 95% of the time within 5%, you need:

Qualitative Studies – In-depth Interviews and Focus Groups

But enough statistics homework for now. The question that is less straightforward to answer, and so is asked all the time: “how many participants do I need for a qualitative study?” such as focus groups or a series of in-depth interviews.

The first thing to do when answering this question is to figure out segmentation. How many types of participants do you need to represent? This can include verticals, countries, roles, years of experience, customers vs. prospects vs. competitor customers vs. partners, and so on.  The most common segmentation when working with Corporate IT is to have two groups: “technology decision-makers” and “economic buyers”.

Once you figure this out, and map any overlap between these areas (for example, partners may also be end-users), you’re ready to go.

In my experience, with corporate IT you need about 8-10 participants of each “type,” with a minimum of 10 participants, to produce a valid study. The only exception is studies with competitor’s customers, where you typically need more participants.

Note that most market research companies, including Dimensional Research, base pricing for qualitative work on the number of participants, so doing a good job right-sizing your project will give you the most bang for your buck.