There are many ways you can use your open-ended-question survey data to improve your customers' experience and your company's reputation.

Combined comments are easy to read and give managers overall concepts. However, combined comments are the Cliff’s Notes of research — short, succinct and to the point, but without depth, nuance or insights. 

Marketing and communications managers should read and use verbatim to provide food for thought and action. Here are some suggested ways verbatim from open-ended survey questions can be used to support marketing and operations.

Topics for articles

Open-ended remarks are full of new ideas or angles for articles, tweets, speeches and case studies. Use quotes to highlight themes or emphasize why actions will be taken.

Content 

Open-ended remarks can be converted into quotes for newsletters, press releases and social media. The phrases are genuine and will be recognized as such. Remember to get permission from respondents if you want to attribute the comments to an individual. 

Improving the Customer Experience 

When customers write: “I love this product but...,“ take note. It is that additional information that identifies where your customer service or operations team are falling short of expectations. Once changes are made, prepare an article about what you heard and what you did.

Promotions

Nuggets about why people buy or recommend products can be found in open-ended remarks. Encourage the PR and advertising team to incorporate the features and benefits that customers say are important into promotional materials and advertising.

Customer service

Don’t ignore complaints found in surveys. Customers who have bad experiences will complain to 20 people. Ask customer service to follow up with people that had trouble navigating customer service, a website or simply weren’t treated well. The people you call will be surprised you read their feedback and impressed you want to make amends.

FAQs

Use questions found in open-ended remarks to develop FAQs. The responses provide information about real concerns and problems.

Thought Leadership

Organizations in crisis will conduct research to understand how customers may react to communication about the issue. Encourage senior managers to use quotes from surveys in speeches and articles to highlight that customers are heard and help in providing direction. Don’t forget to include the changes that will be made as a result of the comments. For more information about handling a crisis read CFM Crisis Ebook.

Research can be much more than statistics. It can provide the foundation and content for communicating and engaging with customers, communities and stakeholders.

Online panel research offers many advantages, but none are any more important than delivering quality findings you can trust in only 24 hours.

Online panels, drawn usually from customer databases, provide a source of easily accessible and trusted feedback, especially on short notice.

CFM was asked to evaluate two print ads and a companion digital ad just days before they were due to launch. Turning to our client's existing online panel, which we helped create, CFM was able to produce solid findings in less than 24 hours, after questions and format were approved. The client thought five days was all it could spare. It was stunned to get results within a day.

In this case, the findings gave a thumbs up to the ads along with some valuable suggestions, such as adding clearly visible contact information. That's something creative types can forget, but is crucial for the eyeballs of those intended to see the ads.

This quick, on-point feedback reassured senior executives to give the ads the go-ahead. They acted based on solid information. Online customer panels made sure they got the information they needed and deserved when they needed it.

This kind of online research using panels allows CFM to conduct research among targeted groups quickly, accurately and inexpensively and provide clients with information worth knowing.

Check out panel research to see whether its information-rich benefits match your need to understand and engage a key audience.

There really isn't any other formal research technique that can deliver that full set of benefits.

The research technique used always should match the objective of the research. Panel research works best under these conditions:

  • You want a large, representative sample of opinion from — for example — your customer database or registered voters.

  • You want the ability to segment your sample for follow-up research based on answers they give, not random selection.

  • You want to engage people in an extended dialogue, with repeat conversations about multiple products or in-depth discussion of an evolving piece of legislation.

Web-based panel research offers other virtues, such as the ability of respondents to answer survey questions at their leisure, not when someone calls them on the phone, or to participate in an online focus group instead of trooping to a hotel room equipped with a camera and cold sandwiches.

While erasing time and space concerns is valuable, the bedrock value of panel research lies in its capacity to engage. You can do more than ask questions. You can cultivate the panel by sharing the findings of the survey they participated in, asking follow-up questions or soliciting their volunteered thoughts.

Unlike a phone call during dinnertime, panel research isn't intrusive. It is inclusive. Respondents can participate at noon or midnight. They can offer more than the one answer to a multiple-choice question. They can ask questions and seek answers. Your research goes from an uneasy transaction to satisfying involvement. 

Two-way involvement is a very different quality than you get from a traditional telephone poll, in-person survey or point-of-sale intercept. The richness of information that panel can yield is the argument for doing it.

Not all situations require rich information. But many do. Panel research is worth exploring to see whether it is the right choice to meet your challenge.

A message that is persuasive but not believable can undermine your investment in marketing or public affairs communications.

The worst trap you can wander into is betting the farm on an argument that research shows is persuasive, but fails to probe deeper to see whether it is believable.

Several years ago, we conducted quantitative research to test the best arguments for a state transportation funding package. The argument that proved most persuasive was the list of transportation projects contained in the legislation to be funded. People liked knowing what the increased gas tax money would pay for.

However, probing deeper revealed that many of the people who liked the idea of a specific list of transportation projects believed that they never would be built. The list was persuasive, but they doubted the credibility of the state agency to follow through.

When the transportation funding bill went to the voters, it was soundly thrashed. Exit polling underscored the problem — a persuasive argument wasn't credible enough to carry the day.

The questions of persuasiveness and believability don't just apply to public policy issues and campaigns. They also are meaningful in a marketing context. A product feature may appeal to potential customers, but unless it convinces them to buy, it is just a nice feature — appealing, but not put-it-in-my-shopping-cart convincing.

For those who like to skimp on research, the persuasive-believable conundrum can become another excuse not to do any research. For people interested in getting a return on their investment in communications and marketing, more nuanced research that digs deeper than superficial appeal is a money-saver.

In reality, a deeper research dive isn't always a lot more expensive. It is more dependent on using a research instrument that enables more careful exploration of views. That is one of the built-in values for online research tools. You can ask more questions because people will answer them, if they get to choose the time and place to respond.

Sifting through rival messages to see which one has the most appeal is an important first step. To make sure it isn't a misstep, find out whether the appeal is real. You could be sorely disappointed if you don't.

We live in the digital era, but that doesn't mean social media platforms such as Twitter can substitute for reliable public opinion instruments.

This isn't surprising. Twitter is a self-selected social media tool. The body of tweets doesn't need to reflect the demographics of a community, state or constituency. People who tweet on a topic may be more liberal, more conservative, richer or poorer than the public at large. Comments have value, but can't be rendered in quantitative terms the same as public opinion polling.

Quality public opinion polling is centered on a representative sample of who is interviewed. That assures the findings have credibility as a reliable reflection of the group being surveyed, with a slight margin of error.

The breadth and depth of the digital revolution may tempt some to see social media platforms as mirrors of public opinion. They certainly are reflections, but not ones you can totally rely upon to make decisions on messaging, trustworthy spokespeople and effective communication channels. A solid poll is a much better instrument for that.

Twitter conversations can be valuable to assess. For example, tweets can show the emotional charge in an issue or how an issue activates a particular group. The compressed format helps people distill what they feel to a few words, which in effect become sound bites. Tweets also can show the range of reactions.

In the world of measurement, there is room for evaluation of platforms such as Twitter. But it is important to recognize the right tool for the job. When you need an accurate picture of how a constituency views an issue, a poll with a representative sample is a much better choice.

Senator Jeff Merkley and embattled Governor John Kitzhaber are still on track to win re-election over GOP challengers.

Survey USA conducted a statewide poll for KATU-TV that shows Kitzhaber clinging to a 51 percent to 38 percent lead over Richardson, with only 6 percent of the electorate still undecided. The survey was conducted between October 16-19 with 561 likely voters, interviewed by both landline and cell phones.

If only men voted, the race would be tighter, as Kitzhaber holds a narrow 48 percent to 46 percent lead. But the governor seeking an unprecedented fourth term wallops Richardson among women voters by 54 percent to 30 percent.

Kitzhaber tops Richardson in the 18-34, 50-64 and 65+ categories and ties him at 45 percent each in the 35-49 cohort.

People who blame Cover Oregon on Kitzhaber typically say they will vote for Richardson' those who don't signal a vote for the incumbent governor.

The survey indicates Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley retains a commanding lead over his GOP challenger, Monica Wehby, at 53 percent to 32 percent. The race is closer among men, but a romp among women who favor Merkley by 60 percent over Wehby at 24 percent.

Survey results show Measure 91 to legalize marijuana and Measure 92 to require labeling for GMO food both have a shot at passing, with nearly identical percentages heading down the stretch. Measure 91 enjoys a 48 percent to 37 percent lead, while Measure 92 maintains a slimmer margin at 44 percent to 37 percent. More than 15 percent of likely voters said they were undecided on the measures, which could tip the final results either way. A major factor for the positive margin is the overwhelming support for both measures among younger voters, which ranges from around 70 percent for to 15 percent against.

The Richardson and Wehby candidacies reflect two more wrong turns for GOP efforts to win statewide office in Oregon. Richardson has tried to downplay social issues, without success, and Wehby has played up her moderacy on those issues, also without success among likely women and younger voters.

GOP operatives are wringing their hands over the absence of a more commanding figure in the gubernatorial race who could have capitalized on scandals that have rocked Kitzhaber and his fiancé Cylvia Hayes just as ballots were heading to mailboxes.

While earlier polls suggested Kitzhaber was vulnerable or at least may have worn out his political welcome, his polling numbers still point to a relatively comfortable re-election margin.

More scandals could still affect the final outcome, but that prospect grows slimmer by the day as Oregonians, especially those who have already made up their minds, cast ballots early.

Source: Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #21818 (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9b06ee8f-0665-4c61-87b9-e3d8fa4cb91c)

Oregonians will receive mail-in ballots any day and it never hurts to have some of the races handicapped by pollsters.

Oregon Public Broadcasting shared results of recent statewide polling on four ballot measures, which shows two of them have tenuous leads, one is an election-day longshot and the other is, as they say in politics, a "dog that won't hunt."

The measures with the best poll numbers at this important pre-vote moment are the ones to legalize marijuana and require labeling for genetically modified foods. The measures that have underwater polling numbers would allow Oregonians who can't document their legal residence to obtain a driver card and permit state bonding for college scholarships.

In a separate poll obtained by The Oregonian — and commissioned by opponents — the measure to establish a "top-two primary" looks as if it will have a tough time passing.

The poll that counts is the final tally of the votes cast, but it's always interesting to know a little about the horses and how they are handicapped before the race starts.

Measure 91, which would allow adult Oregonians to grow, possess and sell marijuana under state regulation, attracts 52 percent of "likely voters" who say they are certain or leaning toward support. Forty-one percent are definitely or leaning against, with just 7 percent undecided.

Measure 92, the GMO labeling initiative, earns 49 percent certain or likely "yes" votes as opposed to 41 percent certain or likely "no" votes. What gives supporters hope is that almost 10 percent of the people leaning "no" are uncertain how they actually will vote. Another 7 or 8 percent are undecided. Campaigns hate that kind of late-stage electoral fluidity.

Measure 86, allowing state bonding for college and career training scholarships, has gained less than 30 percent of firm support. More than 30 percent say they are certain to oppose it. Around 25 percent of respondents were undecided, which mean the measure still has a flicker of life. But that much indecision this late is usually not a good sign.

Measure 88, a referendum on driver cards, looks doomed, based on the poll that indicates 60 percent of respondents are certain or likely to vote "no." More than 50 percent list themselves as "certain" opponents. There is nothing on the horizon likely to turn around these numbers.

Last month, The Oregonian reported Measure 90, the top-two primary initiative, has slipped to only 34 percent support against 43 percent opposed. The Measure 90 campaign manager said the initiative's early polling peak was just 45 percent. Political wisdom says measures should start out with majority support — some even argue supermajority-level support — to have a chance at passage after a campaign.

Source: Voter Turnout May Tip The Scales On Legal Pot Measure (http://www.opb.org/news/article/voter-turnout-will-tip-the-scales-on-legal-pot-measure/)
Source: Polls show Oregon 'top two' primary measure starts out without a majority (http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/09/polls_show_oregon_top_two_prim_1.html)

The Hashtag generation is interested in more than online narcissism as it connects and depends on online brand content.

These conclusions flow from an online study, “Hashtag Nation: Marketing to the Selfie Generation.” It was commissioned by integrated marketing agency Havas Worldwide and based on 10,574 responses from people between the ages of 16 and 29 in 30 countries.

For marketers, the good news is that young people don't disdain brands, but instead invite them into their online social circle. "Nearly half of all young respondents characterize brands as “essential” to them — compared with just a quarter of those aged 55+," according to Havas Worldwide. But a word of warning to marketers: 4 in 10 respondents aged 16‒34 say brands don’t take young people seriously enough.

Survey results suggest younger people think of many brands as part of pop culture. "Far more than older generations," says Havas Worldwide, "young people say pop culture has helped to form their personalities (51 percent) and attitudes (50 percent)."

“Brands rely on youth not just for what’s in their wallets, but for what’s in their heads and hearts — their creative input, their enthusiastic evangelism, their energy,” says Andrew Bennet, Havas Worldwide global CEO. “And young people, in turn, want to be able to rely on brands to make their lives better and to help them stand out from the crowd. It’s a relationship built on mutual interests and trust — and it’s up to brands not to blow it by being disingenuous or failing to keep their promises.”

Technology companies such as Google, YouTube, Facebook and PayPal elicit brand passion. But Havas says any brand can mimic a tech brand persona with a strong digital presence. It is no longer Coke versus Pepsi; it is which brand can immerse someone in its digital experience with a great app, shareable content or a unique online experience.

The study also says companies in the "sharing economy," which are literally services accessed on a software platform, have immediate appeal to Millennials because they make life "more fluid and less expensive."

Source: STUDY HIGHLIGHTS – HASHTAG NATION (http://www.prosumer-report.com/blog/study-highlights-hashtag-nation/)

Data mining has reached schoolhouses where student learning, behaviors and lunch table preferences are captured, amid mounting concern for how the information will be used and by whom.Children are the latest data-mining targets as software track student progress, learning skills, behaviors and even where they sit in the classroom and at lunch.

The data is viewed as necessary for an assessment-driven analysis of student and school performance. But since much of the information collected could leak into the hands of non-educators, it could become a treasure trove for companies seeking to gain a better understanding of their target market. 

Marketplace Tech, a segment on NPR, is running a series of reports this week on what it calls the "Quantified Student."

"From the time they get on the school bus, until they close their laptops at night, there’s a good chance data are being collected on their whereabouts, their learning patterns, their classroom behavior, what they eat for lunch, the websites they browse on their school computers, and maybe even the amount of sleep they get," reports Adriene Hill.

"Schools have always gathered basic data on kids — attendance, grades, disciplinary actions — but now that those records are digital, a school can better spot trends and patterns," Hill adds. The operating principle is "better decisions require better information."

Date collected is used, Hill explains, to support concepts such as individualized learning, personalized learning and differentiated learning.

The rapid growth of data collection on schoolchildren may have escaped many parents, but now is giving rise to student privacy protection legislation around the country to regulate what data can be shared and with whom. Oregon and Washington legislatures considered such bills in 2014. Idaho has adopted a student data security measure.

Source: Navigating a data-driven education (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/education/learningcurve/navigating-data-driven-education)

President Obama speaks to a nation more willing to return to Iraq to combat radical Islamists.For a nation weary of war and wary of the Middle East, the swing in poll numbers supporting U.S. military action against Islamic radicals in Iraq and Syria is nothing short of remarkable.

As President Obama addresses the nation, a new poll by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News indicates 61 percent of Americans favor confronting the Islamic state. A third of respondents approved of both airstrikes and ground troops to degrade and destroy the radical group that has swept through and captured large chunks of Iraq and a portion of Syria. A year ago, only 21 percent of Americans supported U.S. military action in the Middle East.

The videotaped beheading of two U.S. journalists has played a role in reversing American attitudes to support a more aggressive posture, which presumably wasn't what the radicals had in mind. The WSJ/NBC News poll was conducted just after the beheadings.

The swing in attitude toward the radicals gives Obama a chance to revive his sagging 32 percent approval rating on his handling of national defense and foreign policy issues. It also gives him more latitude in selecting a strategy.

Ironically, Obama may have newfound GOP support for counterterrorism. In a meeting with Obama, Republican House Speaker John Boehner expressed support for training and equipping Iraqi security forces and Syrian rebels and for sending U.S. troops back into the region if the mission was to eliminate the radicals.

More hawkish viewpoints pose their own dilemma. Supporters say it won't be enough to contain the Islamic state, it must be defeated.

When Obama earlier considered air strikes in Syria, he got pushback from members of his own political party and a lack of backing in Congress. He steps on the stage tonight more sure-footed with polls numbers and unifying political forces in support of military action.

The WSJ/NBC News poll consisted of telephone interviews with 1,000 registered voters, including 350 respondents who use cell phones. The poll was conducted by Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies and Fred Yang at Hart Research.