Angela Burtch

The Future of Aesthetic Treatments: Data-Driven Marketing Insights

by

By Angela Burtch, Sr. Vice President, Merrill Research

3-Minute Read

Lip enhancement. Turkey Neck removal. Skin rejuvenation. Sculpting, enhancing, or changing our appearance is big business. So, in the ever-evolving world of aesthetic treatments, understanding market forces at work is critical. We’ve observed emerging key trends that include the rapid growth and expansion of the industry as evidenced by increased awareness and acceptance of treatments, technological advancements (new fillers, energy-based delivery, etc.), and increased consumer price sensitivity, to name a few.

Our recent market research study sheds light on these key trends and pricing strategies in this competitive field. With over 200 online interviews combined with telephone-aided to virtual interviews among medical professionals, this study offers valuable insights into the industry.

Methodology: A Blend of Innovation and Precision

One of the standout features of this study is the mixed-mode data collection approach. By combining online survey screening with virtual follow-up with screen share sessions, we ensured a comprehensive and engaging data collection process. This hybrid method not only increased participation rates but also allowed for real-time clarification and deeper insights. Mixed-mode surveys can enhance data quality and reduce nonresponse bias, making them a powerful tool in market research.  Not to mention ensuring we are interviewing a real-life medical specialist and not a bot or other bad actor in a purely online survey.  See another blog we wrote about data quality here.

The Power of Conjoint Analysis

A key component of our study was the conjoint exercise. Conjoint analysis is renowned for its ability to determine the optimal combination of features and pricing by simulating real-world purchasing decisions. By presenting respondents with various product attributes and price point choices, we could identify the most valued features and the ideal price range. And wait for it…we complemented our efforts in real-time using Zoom and shared our screens with respondents to complete the conjoint exercise.  We used a panel of verified physicians and aesthetics decision maker respondents to recruit interviewees.

This method is particularly effective in any industry where there are many different pricing and package/service levels that can significantly influence consumer choices.  And conducting it virtually is particularly effective when you want to target SME (Subject Matter Experts).

Key Findings: Pricing Insights

Our study revealed several critical insights, one of which was pricing strategies, including:

  • Average Cost per Treatment:  This provides a benchmark for the provider to evaluate their pricing strategies.
  • Desired Price per Treatment Area: Based on over 15 variables, our client learned the importance of tailoring pricing strategies based on multiple “discrete choices,” including specific treatment areas and consumer preferences.

These findings underscore the need for flexible and dynamic pricing and service offerings that can adapt to market demands and consumer expectations.

Conclusion

This market research study offered a comprehensive view of the aesthetic treatment landscape, providing actionable insights for industry professionals. The use of mixed-mode data collection and conjoint analysis not only enhanced the quality of our findings but also demonstrated the efficacy of these methodologies in capturing nuanced market subtleties. Interested in the methodology?  Contact us, and we will help you succeed.

Sooner or Later, Everything Old is New Again

by

By Angela Burtch, Vice President, Merrill Research

5-Minute Read

I never thought I’d be writing a blog about conducting surveys by telephone again. Well, maybe not entirely, but hear me out.

Early Online Survey Engines

Since the creation of online survey platforms like SurveyMonkey in the mid-1990s (which, BTW purchased Zoomerang, by MarketTools – a company co-developed and financially backed by Merrill Research, WPP, Proctor & Gamble, and General Mills), market research surveying rapidly shifted from pen-and-paper telephone studies or CATI (computer-assisted telephone interviewing) to online market research.  Online sample providers were popping up everywhere.  The online research industry boomed.

It was the panacea of all research woes – quicker and cheaper. With very few exceptions our clients quickly switched their telephone quantitative research to online.  Everyone was “all in” to make the move to the web.  And the benefits were many.

What was the Original Appeal of Online Surveys?

  • Cost and time reduction: No expensive call centers or interviewers.
  • Increased convenience and accessibility: Respondents complete the survey at their own pace and place.
  • Enhanced engagement and interaction:  Surveys incorporate multimedia elements such as images, videos, audio clips, or animations.
  • Anonymity and confidentiality:  Respondents don’t have to reveal their identity or personal info to an interviewer – especially beneficial for sensitive research topics.
  • Reporting: Facilitate real-time data analysis and reporting with a few clicks.

A Problematic Panacea

But then things began to sour. We saw it start to change over the past five years with the security and quality of online sample.  Click farms, bots, and other bad actors are increasingly common and able to circumvent the safety nets we’ve cast to detect poor data.  We explored this in our previous blog.

This is not the good ol’ days when online panel companies used to source sample by invite only from validated subscription lists or partner companies such as airlines, hotels, and retailers. 

The Advantages of Telephone/CATI

So, is the alternative to revert 100% back to telephone? Well, telephone or CATI surveys do have some advantages such as:

  • Reach B2B respondents too busy and not interested in participating in online research panels.
  • People are increasingly concerned about sharing their info, opinions, or Personal Identifying Information (PII ) on the Internet. This is especially true considering increased worry surrounding clicking on survey links on websites, texts, or email invites. 
  • Trained and professional interviewers can clarify questions, probe for more details, and verify responses.  A live interviewer can help mitigate misunderstanding.
  • High-quality assurance, as researchers/clients can monitor the calls in real-time and check for errors or miscommunication during an interview.

Disadvantages of Telephone/CATI

However, telephone studies have disadvantages:

  • Longer field time.
  • Typically, more expensive.
  • Landline telephone usage is decreasing and represents an older demographic – however, often still a good reach for B2B. 
  • Mobile phone panelists skew younger (at least for now). 

Hybrid or Mixed Mode is a Good Solution

So, what’s the solution?  One way to overcome this challenge is to use a hybrid approach when you need it to address a niche audience.  A combination of telephone or CATI surveys with online. This approach can help leverage the strengths of both methods and overcome their limitations, resulting in better data quality, higher response rates, and more comprehensive insights. Depending on your research questions, target population, budget, timeline, and resources, you may benefit from using a hybrid design.

The Human Connection

We recently engaged in a phone study where the respondents were extremely busy and hard to reach.  We kept hearing: “Could you please just send me an email with a link to the survey?”  The best way to ensure participation with these time-constrained respondents may be by initial telephone screening, profiling, getting some of the easier questions out of the way, presenting an incentive, and then having them complete the more detailed portion of the interview online when it’s convenient for them.  The human connection is made, and follow-through rates are generally higher.

Other use cases:

  • Use online surveys for follow-up and feedback: You can use online surveys to collect additional information from respondents who have completed your telephone or CATI survey. You can enrich your data with more details and insights that may not have been captured by telephone.
  • CATI surveys can validate and verify: You can use telephone or CATI surveys to check the accuracy and consistency of the responses from your online survey. Collect telephone contact info and validate a percentage of online completes. Make sure you’re collaborating with a partner who ensures you are PII compliant.

Telephone and online surveys are both valuable methods of data collection for marketing research. However, using them in isolation may not always yield the best results. By combining them in a hybrid approach, you can optimize your data quality, response rates, and insights.

Need help deciding on the best data collection process?

Let Merrill Research help you with the best methodology. 

Can Market Research Be a Guide Through Difficult Geopolitical Times?

by

Can Market Research Be a Guide Through Difficult Geopolitical Times?

By Angela Burtch, Vice President, Merrill Research

4-Minute Read

It’s well known that when some companies experience economic downturns they trim their sales force, and eliminate PR, advertising, and eventually market research.

But other companies continue to spend on advertising and market research with an eye toward maintaining a presence and using market intelligence to ride the eventual hockey stick up as markets recover. They use research to make sense out of seeming chaos.

But what about geopolitical flare-ups?

The current global landscape is marked by geopolitical tension and conflict in regions such as, but certainly not limited to, Ukraine, Russia, Israel, and Gaza, just to name a few.

How can market research become a critical asset? Here are a few ways in which market research has been used in this regard:

Navigating Uncertainty

Geopolitical conflicts can lead to significant economic shifts. Market research helps businesses understand these changes and navigate the uncertainty. It provides insights into how conflicts are affecting consumer behavior, supply chains, and market dynamics.

Risk Management

Market research can identify potential risks and challenges that businesses may face due to geopolitical unrest. This may include changes in regulatory environments or preferred suppliers.  In recent research we conducted in the technology components space we found that companies have a changing and growing list of countries that procurement is not allowed to do business with.  

Strategic Decision Making

Informed decision-making is crucial during these times. Market research provides data that helps businesses make strategic decisions, such as entering new markets, developing new products, or pivoting business strategies during uncertain times.

Staying Competitive

Understanding the market landscape during geopolitical unrest can give businesses a competitive edge. It can uncover opportunities that may not be apparent amidst the chaos.  In a recent project we completed for a consumer software company we learned that a competitor based in a country experiencing conflict saw dips in brand usage and trust. 

Recommendations for Market Research

Here are some examples of studies conducted that may be of use to you and your organization:

  1. Customer Research: Understanding how your customers’ behavior is changing due to the geopolitical climate can help you adapt strategies accordingly. We’ve done hundreds of studies among consumers, businesses, association members, etc., to monitor these changes—especially during the pandemic.
  2. Supply Chain Analysis: Researching potential and current supply chain disruptions can help businesses plan for contingencies. Maybe this is the time to conduct some IDIs (in-depth interviews) among channel partners?
  3. Competitor Analysis: Understanding how competitors are responding to the geopolitical situation can provide valuable insights.

Conducting market research during difficult geopolitical times is not just beneficial—it’s essential. It equips businesses with the knowledge and insights they need to navigate through uncertainty and remain resilient.

Looking for a trusted partner to help you navigate through uncertainty?  Let’s talk.

Is there a Human in the House?

by

The Risks of AI in Primary Market Research Studies

By Angela Burtch, Vice President, Merrill Research

4-Minute Read

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has revolutionized many industries, including market research. AI can automate data collection, analyze large sets of data, and can often provide insights faster than more traditional methods. However, using AI in primary market research studies is not without risks. Here are some potential pitfalls to consider:

1. Data bias in analysis

AI systems learn from the data they are trained on. If the training data is biased, the AI system will also be biased, leading to skewed results. This is particularly concerning in market research, where unbiased data is critical for accurate insights.

In addition, the results may be biased by your very query.  I recently did a ChatGPT-4 search regarding “why door-to-door research is superior to an online methodology in market research”.  The generated content told me – convincingly – about why door-to-door is superior to online (human interaction, eliminating “bad actors”, etc.), with no mention of the obvious drawbacks:  time, cost, zip code bias, and so on.

2. Trust your hunches

While AI can process raw data faster than humans, it lacks the ability to understand context and nuance in the same way humans do. This could lead to misinterpretation of data and inaccurate conclusions. 

Sometimes we collect data and it doesn’t intuitively make sense with what we think are true market conditions.  What do we do?  Compare to previous research studies we’ve completed, conduct secondary research to see if the results are truly corroborated in the industry, and look at the data forensically to ensure that there are no data integrity issues – often AI-generated fraud. That’s also covered in a separate blog we wrote.

3. Dependence on technology

Over-reliance on AI could lead to a lack of critical thinking and problem-solving skills among researchers. It’s important to remember that AI is a tool to aid market research, and still needs a human hand.

4. Who owns your AI generated marketing research content?

In a working paper authored by the National University of Singapore, the author postulates that “Knowledge Workers”, as defined by Peter Drucker, was a title for people who “think for a living” and earn their wages by being analytical problem solvers.  Clearly, we are increasingly using AI for routine and non-routine problem-solving. What will become of the knowledge workers?  And what’s their ownership of the content?  There are questions surrounding who owns the content produced by generative AI and what requirements will there need to be to prove that content was produced by a human vs. AI. [1]

This has significant implications for companies conducting market research that includes sensitive individual or corporate information. Who actually owns this data and how and with whom will it be shared?  We don’t have NDAs with AI.  We expect this will continue to keep IP legal experts busy and market researchers understandably concerned about legal and reputational consequences for the foreseeable future. While AI has the potential to greatly enhance primary market research studies, it’s important to be aware of these risks and take steps to mitigate them. As with any tool, the key is to be cautious, judicious, and use HI – Human Intelligence.

Do you have research questions that need answers delivered by skilled “knowledge workers”?  Please connect with us to discuss solutions.

[1] Chesterman, Simon, AI-Generated Content is Taking over the World. But Who Owns it? (January 11, 2023). NUS Law Working Paper No. 2023/002, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4321596 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4321596

How to Lather, Rinse, and Repeat Your Way to Clean Research Results

by

By Angela Burtch, Vice President, Merrill Research

4-Minute Read

In Part 1 of this series we touched on a few tips on how to ensure the integrity of data when conducting a market research study. 

A lot has changed in the past few years and we thought it was time to add more content. More bots, frauds, and other illegitimate means are increasingly common and able to circumvent the safety nets we’ve cast to detect poor data.  Everyone is working hard together to mitigate bad survey data.  So, with this blog, we’d like to continue to offer up more suggestions that will help all of us to this end.

Lather

Before you even see a respondent in a survey, make sure your sample provider has done all the pre-conditioning to ensure the integrity of the participant.  These are just a few of the myriad factors that impact respondent quality.  Your respondents need to be squeaky clean.  Here are some questions to ask your vendor:

  • How are they sourcing their sample? Proprietary panel?  APIs? if so which ones?  Affiliate publishers?  River/intercept sampling?  Some other way?  Make sure you know the source.
  • If panels are used, what tools are used in the registration process to mitigate fraud?  Digital fingerprinting? 3rd party validation? Double opt-in validation? IP validation?

We could write an entire series of blogs just on this first lather.  Go to the sample provider’s website and see what they say they do!

Rinse

Even when the legwork is done up-front by your sample provider to vet your respondents, as researchers we are responsible for ensuring that quality checks continue post-recruitment. 

So, it’s time to rinse and get rid of anything that wasn’t taken out in the suds by your sample vendor.  How do you do that?  Make sure your questionnaire can stand up to fraud. 

It used to be that we would sprinkle a “gotcha” question or two into the respondent screening to rinse out the duds.  Not anymore.  For a typical 10-minute survey we will include all types of trap questions starting in the screening section all the way through the main questionnaire and we use elaborate decision trees to decide what flags or completely terminates a respondent. 

Here are a few tips that we highly recommend you incorporate into your next questionnaire:

✔ Red Herring questions.  Most researchers know about these.  As an example, in a branding study you could include a “fake brand” in an aided awareness list and flag or terminate respondents who select this option. Be careful with this one.  Make sure you do your due diligence and make sure that your red herring brand is not too similar to a real-life brand.  For example, if the subject matter is awareness of social media sites, a question with an artificial brand “Tweeter” could potentially be selected because of its very close similarity to “Twitter”.  Always remember, you don’t want to entrap and confuse respondents, you just want to make sure that you’re rinsing away the unengaged and potentially bad data responses.

✔ Skill testing questions. An actual legal requirement in Canada for sweepstakes. A simple mathematical problem slows down respondents and adds another level of security. Don’t ask respondents to solve a differential calculus problem (unless they are engineers!), but instead, ask a simple problem like (10 x 10) – 5. BTW – that’s 95. Give yourself a pat on the back if you got it right. This may not work with AI created bots, but it can help detect human or click-farm respondents. Stay tuned for my next blog on that..

✔ Attention check questions.  These work really well to wash out speeders. In this instance, you tell a respondent to pick a specific response option.  For example: “We want to make sure you are taking your time to read all the survey questions, for this question please select ‘Not Very Familiar’ below.” If they didn’t follow the instruction, then what else were they speeding through? Rinse them out of your hair.

✔ Look at the open ends.  If you have any open-text questions in your survey, these often provide tell-tale indicators of junk you want to flush out.  Nonsense answers (FDSKALFDAKJFSA). Obvious multiple copy and pastes.  Or out-of-context answers (e.g., you are asking about car brands, and the responses are about bicycles).  Even if you didn’t budget time or expense for coding an open end, including one just for the purpose of monitoring data quality can be a good idea.  Example: “In a few words, please type below the kind of movies you like to watch.”  Limit the character count to 50 characters so you aren’t using valuable survey taking time, but you can still gauge respondent presence in the question.

✔ Just way too positive.  If in a battery of questions, everything is “Extremely Favorable”, “Extremely Important”, etc. Consider you might have an over-endorsing respondent seeking to please the research sponsor and stay in the respondent pool.  This is somewhat similar to straight lining, which we addressed in this previous blog.

✔ Speaking of straight lining answers, make it harder to do.  Instead of long boring batteries of attributes to rate on a scale, consider mixing up your question structure.  How about a drag and drop exercise asking respondents to sort the attributes by Like, Dislike, and Neutral emojis instead of having them cruise down a page clicking numbers.

✔ Look for contradictions. Do the survey answers contradict themselves or do they make sense? Often this means deciding to ditch a respondent on a case-by-case basis. For example, if someone answers that they drink beer once a month and subsequently answers that they buy beer daily, is this valid? Cross-check with some of the other tips listed above.

And Repeat

Yes, repeat.  Repeat with every prospective sample partner you are considering.  Repeat with every questionnaire you design. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Need help with designing research mousetraps? Let Merrill Research guide you through your next research study!

7 Deadly Sins of Questionnaire Design: Part 2

by

By Angela Burtch, Vice President

5.6 Minute Read

As market research professionals for nearly four decades, we’ve seen it all. Especially the dirty little secrets of poor questionnaire design. Like what, you ask? Well, how about trying to stuff 10 pounds of questions into a five-pound questionnaire? Some call it scope-creep. In the software industry it is called bloatware. We call it a sin.

So, how do you draft a sinless questionnaire that yields valid and meaningful insights? Some of the best practices are highlighted in our previous blog entitled, The Blueprints of a Proper Questionnaire:

  • Identifying research objectives and the specific questions that need to be answered
  • Identifying the appropriate targets for the questionnaire. Remember GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).
  • Developing a framework for and flow of the questionnaire
  • Finalizing a well designed, field-ready survey that addresses those objectives and questions.

 


Ah, but temptation lies within the questionnaire. That’s where we see lots of transgressions—among them, the 7 deadly sins that you should always avoid, and ideally never commit when designing, writing or fielding a questionnaire.

1. Greed: This very often occurs when two questions are asked at once, making it difficult for a respondent to just give one answer. An obvious example of this: What brand do you think leads for quality winemaking and value? These are two different questions. Who is the leader for quality winemaking? And who is the leader for value? There could be two different answers.

Don’t hem in your respondents by forcing them to make one choice. The results will be misleading, if not useless.

2. Pride: We all like to be the George Gallup of questionnaire construction. Maybe some are. But experience says that every questionnaire should be outlined, designed and written. Then edited. Then pre-tested (sometimes first among peers or colleagues). Then edited. Then launched to a small sub-set of your target audience (soft launch). Then possibly reedited. Then fully deployed.

So much time and money is invested into the research process that these final QA steps must not be overlooked. Failure to do so can result in questions that are not clear to respondents, or the logic of the questionnaire is incorrect.

3. Gluttony: Not every study needs thousands of respondents. Sometimes a couple of hundred will meet your needs. Make sure you aren’t spending money and incurring increased field time with an unnecessarily large sample size. Bigger is not always better.

Considerations: How many data segments need to be observed? What level of confidence do you want for statistical significance (well, that’s another blog)?

4. Sloth: This iniquity can often be seen in tracking studies. You’ve been asking the same questions for wave after wave after wave. The market may have changed and your learning needs may be different but you continue using the same questions every wave, because “that’s just how you’ve always done it.”

Yes, tracking data is critical to measure over time, but sometimes you need to tweak the questions to make them more current. An example may be in the hospitality industry where competitor brand lists may change significantly in just a year.

Try to look at the questionnaire with fresh eyes every wave and look for ways to improve or perhaps expand questioning. Don’t be lazy!

5. Lust: Be choosy about your partners. This is especially true regarding respondent sample. Not all sample providers source their panels the same way.

Avoid “river sampling”. That’s when respondents click on a survey banner or a social media ad. Then they’re asked several screening questions and will get channeled to a pertinent survey based on their answers. Like fishing in a river stream—you don’t know who you’ll catch and what their demographic/psychographic profile is.

6. Envy: A vice of desire. Do not copy other research company’s questions. Thou shall not steal!

7. Wrath: Suffice it to say, you could incur the anger of respondents with agonizingly long surveys and/or questions or response-sets that are poorly worded or irrelevant. Make the user experience as friendly as possible. Common wrath-worthy design flaws include asking several questions where each respondent has to rate a long list of attributes (more than 12)—essentially sending them to survey purgatory.

These are just the 7 major sins that we’ve identified. Have you seen any that we missed? If so, email us at info@jonathand149.sg-host.com and let us know.

As you can, see proper survey construction involves much more than creating questions. In these unprecedented times, valid and reliable information is more critical than ever to ensuring company success. We can help. We understand sinless survey design.

Merrill Research, Experience You Can Count On

 

Image Credit: Ape Lad