Client/Company Perspective
12-4-2011
Dr. Pete
Dear Dr. Pete:
I recently was given a research report to read that was circulating in the client company. Compared to what I originally had written for the client, it lacked any technical details about the sampling, weighting schemes and all the other important things we do.
If clients don't care about such things, why should we? Surely it would be easier not to do things "by the book?"
-Pelo Livro
Dear Pelo:
Oh, but they do care. They do. It's just that they expect you to have taken care of these things.
What generally is more interesting at this point in the food chain is not how it was done but what it means and how it can be applied. If you've ever seen CEOs either rolling their eyes or walking out of your presentation after 20 minutes, it's not because they don't care. It's because you're still droning on about methods. (Again, please be sure your nouns and verbs are agreeing in terms of singular and plural.)
Now let's take a look at your second point—would it be easier not to do things "by the book?" I've got a couple of things to say here. Firstly, you are going to come unstuck one day, and your clients are not going to like your data. Whether you believe they care about methodology or not, they are going to ask some tough questions about what you did. At this point you have two choices—the first is to tell the truth. To be frank, I'd have to say rather you than me as you try to explain (without of course saying that you think your clients don't care about methodology) that you have singlehandedly invented a better way of doing market research and have kept quiet about it until now. Your second option is to lie. My advice to people thinking of lying their way out of a situation is—don't. You will get caught. (Again, please watch agreement.)
All in all, I'd say don't go rushing around making up new ways to do stuff—it's hard. Might as well do it right. At least then when your clients don't like your data, it's more their problem than yours. Just keep on doing it "right" and don't worry about what happens down the line.
-Dr. Pete
Dear Dr. Pete:
I'm on the client side, a professional researcher by trade, and recently have become aware of certain quality issues of being discussed in and around the online space. I think I should have been told about this before I spent my company's money on some online studies. Is there anything else I should be told?
-Ken Niets
Dear Ken:
Well, yes, there are a number of things that you should consider. But, to be frank, it's not my job to tell you about them—or is it? I don't know. How could I know what you don't know?
Here are a few things I think you need to know that you possibly don't:
Most, if not all, of your research suppliers are ever so slightly scared of you.
Some, if not many, of your research suppliers are actively frightened of you.
You are probably not working with the researchers who are not frightened of you.
So that's the power dimension dealt with. Basically they are frightened of you. What else can I tell you?
They think you know everything.
They think you are right.
They think that even if they think you are wrong you are probably right.
They think that even if they know you are wrong you are probably right.
So that's knowledge. Finally, the money. You have it, they want it.
Now let's take a look at your current situation. You think your research supplier knows something you don't. Let's make the stretch and suppose that is true. Should they tell you? Here are a few scenarios based on the above:
I'm not telling my clients because...
I expect they already know and obviously don't care, or they wouldn't have asked for the methodology;
I need this project and the revenue really bad; or
I think they will shout at me.
Here's another way of looking at it. "They are research professionals just like I am. Maybe they should have taken time out to discover what's going on with the methodology."
Caveat Emptor applies just as much to Client/Agency relationships as it does to Agency/Supplier relationships. Nuff said.
-Dr. Pete
