Who would take the time to complete a survey online?

How do you know what people say in an online survey is true?

Not everyone has a computer, so how representative can an online survey be?

Barely a decade ago, online surveys were a new tool. Today, more than half of all surveys of the public are done online instead of by telephone. There are tradeoffs either way, and both methods require vigilance in design and execution. We often prefer the online approach for speed, cost and flexibility reasons, but it is not without problems. Those questions above are important to be able to answer.

Our research industry association—Council of American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO)—focuses on these issues. The CASRO Online Research conference in March included an interesting discussion session with online panel respondents: “real” people sharing their thoughts and perceptions from the other side of the table—or the computer/mobile device.

Here are a few of the ideas that the online respondents shared:

• People participate in online surveys because they actually like giving their opinions
• People dislike long and boring question or answer sets, so it’s best to keep questions interesting and relatively short
• They prefer questionnaires that are easy to navigate online and intuitive to understand
• When answering a multiple choice question they find it annoying when answer sets do not include the option they want to use, so lists should be comprehensive but not exhausting (a delicate balance)

As research practitioners, we want to be comprehensive in our questioning approaches. The panel of survey respondents reminds us to consider the human perspective and avoid creating surveys that some might call tedious rather than thorough.

This is a reminder of a critical requirement in any survey, regardless of data collection method: keep the balance between an interesting study (for the respondent) and a valid set of responses (for us).

It’s hard not to like David Brooks. His columns and political commentary are so reasonable. He makes sense out of so many murky issues in our political constellation.

I’m excited to see that he tackles the admittedly large topic of human decision making in his recent book, The Social Animal.

My original enthusiasm came from a PBS News Hour interview. When asked why it’s wrong to think reason rules, Brooks replies, “Because our emotions tell us what to value. They’re like a little GPS system: Go that way. Don’t go that way.” Brooks’ comments resonated because emotions are a key factor in motivation research.

I became more enthralled in The Social Animal when Brooks used an expository device popularized by an early-career hero of mine, the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Just as Rousseau used his character Emile to explain a theory of education, Brooks introduces us to Harold and Erica to set forth some of the latest thinking on the ways that people’s lives are shaped by their background, their surroundings and the decisions they make.

He follows this engaging pair through their youth and young adulthood, during which they meet and marry, and on through the balance of their lives. Each chapter, all noteworthy for their colorful titles—“Decision Making”, “Norms”, “Limerance”, and “The Insurgency”—explains both how the conscious and unconscious minds interact and the ascendance of emotion over reason in decision making. (Sound familiar? Read our blog post on Emotion in Business Decisions.)

The implication Brooks draws—“reason and emotion are not separate and opposite. Reason is nestled upon emotion and dependent upon it. Emotion assigns value to things and reason can only make choices on the basis of those valuations.”—taps into the essence of means-end theory. It brings me joy to see a popular writer/thinker explain the model we live by.

The popularity of The Hunger Games has some making assertions that it will replace the Harry Potter series in popularity, others making predictions that archery will become a popular pastime among our youth, and still others speculating that Katniss Everdeen will be the new archetype for today’s generation (recalling images of the Greek Artemis), much as Marilyn Monroe was a couple of decades ago (reminiscent of Aphrodite).

We have our own interpretation.

The female protagonist in The Hunger Games, a young archer, is appealing because she combines personal strength and clarity of mission with recognition that she needs to create a reason for people to want her to survive. For the handful of you who don’t know the story, the protagonist is up against 23 other young people to win a horrible “game”, which means she has to stay alive while the others perish. In order to stay alive she relies on her skills, intuition and strength, but she also needs to convince spectators to help her from afar by sending her gifts (like salve to heal a mortal wound).

To put it in marketing terms, she needs to create a brand. Brands serve many purposes: they provide name recognition, help build positive reputation, and establish goodwill. Brands open doors and make people receptive to listening. So Katniss learns to establish herself as the star in a pack of brutal contenders, while maintaining her humble and caring nature. She becomes a favorite of the elite (who provide her with life-saving gifts) and the non-elite (who rally around her ideals).

There are parallels with another archer: our namesake, the Greek goddess of the wilderness and of fertility, Artemis. We chose Artemis as our symbol for some of the same attributes that Katniss embraces; she represents strength, accuracy, nurturing and protection. As in The Hunger Games, research is often about trying to make sense of a challenging environment. Strength of focus and accuracy in interpretation are critical. Our work is often used to help nurture a growing brand, or to protect an existing one. We love the meaning of our namesake Artemis, and so, despite the gruesome theme of The Hunger Games, we love the modern-day evocation of the virtues that make the image of this archer so strong.

“Corporations are people.”

Mitt Romney has taken a lot of heat in political primaries for that statement. Not wading into the political specifics, part of his problem was that he simply failed to say that corporations are led and populated by people who make decisions just like other humans.

The economic corollary to Romney’s malapropism is that business decisions are based solely on cold, hard facts. Business training and language reinforce this notion.

It’s not so. We continually see in our motivation research among business decision-makers that this purely rational characterization is incomplete. When we talk with owners and managers of small and midsize businesses about employee benefits, for example, they have plenty to say about the rational reasons for benefits: they help attract and retain. But they pay equal attention to the commitment they feel to their employees.

The challenge in developing product, gaining clients, and building a brand among a business clientele is to understand both the rational and emotional dimensions of their decisions.

Whether the issue is telecommunication, financial services or critical supplies, most business decision-makers consider relationships, confidence, trust and the question, “Do these relationships and services contribute to ‘my’ success?” While these emotions don’t reach the same extremes as “love” and “hate”, they are feelings.

Most marketers want to earn trust, engage with market influencers, build credibility, raise awareness of their company or brand, and expand their market. Effective thought leadership programs help you do all these things, and primary research is a great foundation upon which to build a program.

A partner organization that we admire, HNW, conducts research on a consistent basis to build their already rich knowledge of the wealthy. Some of their studies are comprehensive and have been measuring attitudes and motivations for at least a decade. Others are fascinating because they are quick measures of sentiment on high-profile topics. Click here to check out HNW’s Poll of the 1%.

We like to think in terms of three buckets of research that support thought leadership initiatives:

1. A News Nugget. These studies are quick: conceived, fielded and reported within a week to ten days. A News Nugget type story might measure public opinion of a specific event (rating of ads aired during the SuperBowl) or a topic that is making news daily (HNW’s Occupy Wall Street study referenced above). The questionnaire is usually short and to the point, and a quick press release and accompanying materials are released within a couple of days of the research being completed.
2. Making a Splash. The research that underpins Making a Splash efforts are often solid, well thought-out primary studies that are conducted just once or twice. They might highlight an industry challenge and ways to overcome those challenges (how to help people overcome the barriers of saving more money) or address emerging issues that the audience doesn’t often think about and demonstrate why they’re important (e.g., women business owners and their quest for credit for their businesses).
3. A Sustaining Property. A thought leadership approach that falls into the Sustaining Property category demonstrates that the organization has an on-going commitment to the issue or idea. The approach is comprehensive, studies are conducted consistently, and the team often promotes the results using several outlets (speeches, webinars, television or radio interviews, press releases, conferences, etc.). PNC’s annual Economic Outlook, conducted twice a year among small and mid-sized business owners, is a great example of Sustaining Property.

The Artemis Strategy Group team has been conducting thought leadership studies for a couple of decades. Here are some quick tips to keep in mind, based on our experience:

1. Thought leadership requires thinking. Start by harnessing what you know and identifying themes and hypotheses to be tested.
2. Be different and interesting. Lots of studies are conducted for public release. Make sure yours sets you apart.
3. Don’t be self-serving. Don’t blatantly use the research to sell your products and services. The media and consumers are savvy and won’t pay attention if they think it’s a sales pitch.
4. Tell a story. Great ideas are often communicated with compelling stories, and they are driven home with quantitative supporting evidence.
5. Build on your brand. If your brand stands for a powerful idea that can be linked to your story, make the link with appropriate stories, cues and symbols.