There is a lot of doom and gloom in our industry at present.
A recent survey of research agency leaders indicated that only 3 in 10 were optimistic about the state of the current UK market research sector. We’re all being inundated with articles on how AI will take our jobs, behavioural data will usurp claimed data, and that the UK is becoming less relevant on an increasingly volatile global stage.
The truth is, we can’t stop the tides, but we can learn to ride the waves as best as we can – navigating smoother sailing for our clients as our end goal.
One example of this is the increased focus on data fraud within online surveying.
With an estimated cost of $3bn from online survey fraud across the globe in the last year, it’s an issue with immense scale and financial impact. It’s also not something that can be solved by a single, silver bullet, but instead requires constant attention, with a multitude of proactive approaches which evolve as quickly the threat does.
STRAT7’s unique Data Integrity methodology is something we offer our clients as standard on their projects, so convinced are we of the wholesale benefits of this approach.
A few months back, we collaborated with STRAT7 Audiences on a research experiment to identify the true impact of heightened attention to every single respondent on the ultimate goal of any market research – business decision making.
Conducting a study in the UK and US, we created three ‘typical’ research modules, rotated to avoid order biases:
Within these, we created two fake concepts for a new toothpaste brand and a fake OOH creative for this new brand to remove any biases derived from an existing awareness of a brand or campaign.
In short, dirty data could cost your business millions.
Perhaps I’m being a little bit click-baity here. Hear me out.
In our concept test, data integrity checks proved the difference between the decision to choose one concept over another. They also unearthed more neutrality towards concepts, which might have prompted a client to undertake optimisations. It also provided more realistic views on price sensitivity, purchase intent, and frequency. With decision making timelines so often squeezed and numbers viewed as gospel, it’s fair to see how this research could have been used to drive the car in the wrong direction.
Equally, in our campaign evaluation module, we saw the additional checks reduced levels of false recall. This data also provided more clarity on areas for creative optimisation to enhance message takeout. Less stark than the concept testing, this ultimately provided a client with opportunities to enhance their creative outputs for better comprehension, getting more bang from their media buck when the next burst happens.
While many researchers will point the finger at their panel partner as solely responsible for quality, we take the view that the design of the research, the questionnaire, and the survey environment can be just as helpful in combatting fraud. It’s about parties working together and blending automation and human common sense to detect where something feels ‘off’.
The UK has a mature and innovative research industry. We should continue to lead the charge on this matter, hopefully marching through the doom and gloom of the present day to a bright future for our sector. And if not? I’m sure the robots have the answer.
Frances Revel-Cooper
Head of Custom Insight
