Editor’s note: Terry Vavra and Doug Pruden are partners at research firm Customer Experience Partners. Vavra is based in Allendale, N.J. Pruden is based in Darien, Conn.

Smart marketers want to be guided in their decisions by marketing research (i.e., listening to their customers) but sometimes research findings can be pretty confusing. Take for instance the matter of companies deploying their resources to “listen in” on what customers are writing about them online.

The majority of U.S. Internet users are aware of companies’ active monitoring. And, fittingly – according to a February 2013 study conducted by J.D. Power for NetBase – approximately 60 percent of those under age 55 (and 40 percent of those 55+) say they want companies to be listening. Research from NM Incite reports an even stronger desire, finding that 83 percent of Twitter users and 71 percent of Facebook users expect a response from a brand. But not casually; they expect it within a day or even faster (50 percent of Twitter users expect a response within two hours)!

That all sounds like a straightforward message; companies have their marching orders from their customers. This would be true, except that the same NetBase study also reports:

• Some 40 percent of U.S. Internet users under age 55 (and 54 percent of those 55+) agreed that “Companies that listen online are intruding on customers.”

• Almost 45 percent of Internet users under 55 (and 58 percent of age 55+) say that “Consumers should be able to talk about companies online without the company listening.”

• 64 percent of U.S. Internet users say that “Companies should only respond to online comments made directly to them (e.g., on their Facebook page, or tweeted to them, etc.).”

These further findings begin to sound like a argument for reducing the resources many companies are currently deploying to monitor social media. After all, the findings suggest that nearly half of all consumers consider the social media to be their space. They don’t want companies listening in, in a Big Brother mode. But we’re not sure that’s really what customers mean.

Our interpretation:

1. Companies need to know what customers are writing about them. But, now we draw a distinction between comments posted in the public versus the private social media. Responses may be welcomed from postings in the public social media. It may only be responses sourced from eavesdropping on the private social media that offend some customers.

2. When companies are directly addressed they need to respond in a timely, if not urgent, fashion.

3. When not directly addressed with a problem or question, companies need to proceed more cautiously. They should still attempt to make contact but should do so carefully. Through either a public or private dialogue, they should identify themselves, tell where they heard about the complaint and offer resolution.

4. Outreach to customers who have posted should never begin with a plea to remove their negative comments. (Only if and when an issue has been satisfactorily resolved is a removal request appropriate.)

With a crowded and noisy consumer landscape, a marketer’s and researcher’s attention is often divided between various growth opportunities and communication channels. However, something that marketers and marketing researchers often don’t spend enough time thinking about is defending their brand and position in the marketplace.

Earlier this year I attended the Kellogg Marketing Conference at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, where I listened to one of my old marketing professors, Tim Calkins, talk about a subject that most marketers know exists but are often at a loss for how to address or anticipate: proactively defending your brand.

In the discussion, Calkins reviewed several examples of top brands that did not successfully defend themselves, resulting in significant market share loss. From Chobani’s share-stealing entrance from its competitors in the yogurt marketplace to BlackBerry’s slow but steady demise and Kodak’s growing irrelevancy, time and time again we have seen the consequences of a non-defensive brand strategy.

Calkins argued that it really should be every marketer’s priority to defend against competitive threats because it’s hardest to defend once your threat is defined and easiest to defend when your threat is undefined.

Using market research to defend your brand

Energized by Calkins’ session, we put our heads together to identify the top six tips that we often give to clients to make sure they are proactively defending and protecting their market share:

Remember: Your consumer is your boss. We all get tripped up by internal politics, agendas and internal brand priorities. However, some of the best advice that we can give you is to remember that your consumer is always your No. 1 boss (even above your company’s CEO). Keep the lines of communication open with them; work hard at understanding and continuously meeting/exceeding their needs.

Incorporate consumer trend-spotting into your routine. It is important to pay attention to changes in your target consumer. You need to regularly identify potential consumer disruptions. How? You can develop need-state segmentations, read relevant blogs, review consumer feedback, shop the shelf and participate in social listening. Regardless of how you do it, it must be done regularly to stay agile and relevant.

Assume the role of an observer whenever possible. We recommend performing observational research with your products/brands regularly. The cost is not great to do consumer immersions and it can result in groundbreaking discoveries. Observing consumers is a great way to spot consumer pain points that they may not even know themselves (e.g., watching consumers struggle with mops/dusters resulted in a new, widely accepted brand of cleaning tools – Swiffer).

Conduct research to feed the innovation pipeline. Change is the only constant and your brand must be planning for change and news in the marketplace. If your innovation pipeline is not supported by meaningful, relevant benefits from consumer research, you are leaving yourself open to competitive threats and innovations as well as potential share loss.

Assess your category and competitors regularly. We all know that it’s important to participate in brand equity tracking and focus on brand innovation but we still need to make sure we are paying attention to our category, competitors, their consumers and their activity in the marketplace. Marketers and researchers should be talking not only to their consumers but to their competitors’ consumers as well. Furthermore, A&U and habits-and-practice studies should be conducted on a regular basis (every three-to-five years) covering multiple brands – not just your own.

Conduct internal war-gaming sessions. It’s always great to put yourself in the shoes of your competitor and imagine how they would react but few professionals actually take the time to strategize and think like a competitor. Several-hour-long internal war-gaming sessions are great for immersing yourself in the competition and identifying anticipated competitive strategies that you can respond effectively to.

A great offense is unfortunately not always the best defense. Use market research to defend your brand and make sure you don’t lose sight of protecting what is already yours.

Thirsty or hungry or can’t decide? It doesn’t really matter these days, as a double-duty drink will fulfill both needs. I had no problem satisfying my appetite while also quenching my thirst at the recent International Home & Housewares Show in Chicago. Between the coffees and espressos, various smoothies and green-juice concoctions served in chocolate cups, I was able to drink my way through the day and get all the caffeine, antioxidants and flavor options I could possibly desire.

Small kitchen appliances made to produce beverages are currently getting a lot of attention from manufacturers, designers, retailers and most importantly, from consumers. According to NPD’s consumer tracking service, juice extractors, citrus juicers, blenders and food processors are the top-growing small kitchen appliance categories in the 12 months ending February 2013.

The fastest-growing small kitchen appliance is one of the lesser known: the juice extractor, which more than doubled in sales over the past two years, according to NPD’s consumer tracking service. But there’s more to the trend than just juicing. High-performance blenders effortlessly chop and pulverize just about anything to provide a finished product that is sure to please even the most finicky, while still retaining all of the whole-food benefits. This changes the game for how consumers “eat” their meals.

Many of us have been drinking our breakfast for years, if you count our morning coffee. Add lots of milk – conventional or soy – to that coffee (think latté) and it’s not a bad substitute. But now we can add even more nutrients, and save time, with the high-tech appliances that tout simplified healthy eating.

All indications point out that the food prep appliance craze is here to stay. The NPD Group data shows consumers are purchasing fewer cooking appliances, as that segment of the industry grew just 1 percent in 2012. This tells us more Americans have already started to rethink how they prepare and consume their meals. It’s a whole new approach to the liquid diet.

As a researcher you’re likely following the shift from computers to mobile. You’re probably also aware that in the fourth quarter of 2012, mobile device sales outpaced computer sales for the first time ever. And here’s one more statistic: more than five billion smartphones are going to be sold over the next five years.

These massive shifts in the way people learn, inquire, communicate and access information are creating an enormous shift in the market research industry. But with every paradigm shift comes opportunity and that applies to MR as well; mobile research allows us to conduct in-the-moment research in ways not possible just a few years ago.

Quantitatively accurate, in-the-moment technology is exciting. But as the methodology develops we think that it’s critical to establish fundamental ground rules.

Consider these questions next time you’re thinking about including a mobile component to your next study:

What do you mean by geo-fencing? Geo-fencing, GPS and image capture are all interesting terms but panel company sales teams use those words without defining them. There are vastly different levels of sophistication of technology.

How many panelists do you have and how were they obtained? Make sure to understand how many panelists the provider has and how they go about recruiting their panelists. Many companies simply try to convert a tired and overused online panel, with limited success.

Is this a mobile Web or native app? Web-optimizing existing platforms as mobile-friendly is not a solution. Make sure to ask how much of their platform is native to the app as that will help you determine how feasible the study really is for mobile.

How are you solving screen real-estate issues? It’s obvious that smartphone screens are smaller. But there are ways to mitigate screen real-estate issues when questions are long or have multiple answers. Ask to see examples.

How long can the survey be? Many in the industry claim that mobile surveys can only include a few questions. That’s not our experience. Ask what data they have supporting any premise that surveys can only be a few minutes.

Bruce Isaacson’s article on claim substantiation studies (“Playing nice with legal”) in the January 2013 issue of Quirk’s provides several very good recommendations for how to best substantiate a product claim. In my opinion, though, he overlooked what could be a potentially damaging consequence of testing multiple claims in a single study.

While Isaacson correctly states that “When substantiating claims, questionnaires must focus only on the claims of interest and nothing more,” he also states that “A claim substantiation questionnaire may test a number of different claims and marketers can use the results that support their product, even if other results do not.” That is a very dangerous tactic, particularly when you are trying to make a comparative claim against a named brand.

Here’s why. Suppose you set out to substantiate that your cake mix (continuing to use Isaacson’s category example) is better than Duncan Hines. In the context of a properly constructed product test you not only question consumers as to their overall ratings of each product/brand but also ask them to rate each product on flavor strength, moistness and each of several other key attributes/benefits.

Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that the client’s product is rated as highly as Duncan Hines overall (e.g., there is no claim of overall superiority) but wins significantly on flavor strength. And, just for the sake of argument, Duncan Hines wins significantly on moistness.

Many marketers, based on this research, might be encouraged to create a communications campaign that touts their cake mix as being more flavorful than Duncan Hines. Why not? The data supports it. And, legal and the media would accept this research as adequate substantiation.

Here’s the problem. Duncan Hines, without much difficulty, can ask to see the substantiation, including the questionnaire. Once the questionnaire has been revealed, aggressive attorneys at Duncan Hines can see that multiple issues were studied and can get hold of the entire data set. Guess what? Your own study that substantiates your claim of more flavor now can become the substantiation for Duncan Hines to make a counter claim of “more moistness.”

Isaacson also suggests in his article that failure to win on the intended claim in a study might still reveal another possible claim: “We can state claims that closely match the data even when the tested product did not ‘win’ the test in the traditional sense of the word.” This can also be risky. Suppose, using Isaacson’s example, that you launch a claim that one-third of consumers prefer your product. When the aggressive lawyers for another brand obtain that study, they may find that their brand actually did even better. You get to keep your substantiated claim but they use your own data to substantiate an even better claim.

The safest way

So what should you do? Even though it is more expensive, the safest way to substantiate a claim is to conduct two studies. First, conduct your rigorous and carefully-controlled product test to determine your potential claims. Then, based on that learning, conduct a follow-up study that only asks the single question that will provide the basis for your claim.

It may cost you more for conducting a second study but it eliminates the potential risk of providing your competitors with ammunition for a counterclaim.

I agree with many points that Joseph Rydholm made in his February 2013 Trade Talk column, “Are we ready to become scientists?” The article, however, overly emphasizes big data analysis while neglecting the role background knowledge plays in scientific research.

Three potential problems can arise from this unbalanced perspective. (I emphasize “potential” because there are, indeed, many valuable applications of big data analysis when appropriate statistical methods, e.g., experiments, guided by theory, are used.)

Overreliance on the behaviorist method: My primary concern is focused on those organizations for which big data is the dominant form of non-experimental consumer inquiry, because it reflects an implausible method of understanding human behavior – behaviorism. Arising from the field of psychology in the early 20^th century, behaviorism holds that, because mental states are unobservable, the only valid way to understand and predict human behavior is to study only behavior. That’s what big-data scientists do if their analyses are exclusively based on non-experimentally derived “marketing-mix variables and sales data,” or what I call behavior-only data.

Biased models: As a consequence, building models using behavior-only data (e.g., scanner-based data) can bias a model’s coefficients, as discussed by Dan Horsky et al.’s article, “Observed and unobserved preference heterogeneity in brand-choice models” (Marketing Science, July-August 2006, pp. 322-35). Using scanner-based data, they report that “the addition of individual-specific brand-preference information [i.e., brand attitude data] significantly improves fit and prediction” and that, without such data, the model (using behavior-only data) produces biased estimates of factors such as brand loyalty and price sensitivity (p. 322).

Ignoring consumer mental states: Behaviorism lost favor in the field of psychology simply because of its implausibility and it is easy to see why from our perspective as marketing researchers. Different consumer beliefs, intentions and emotions can give rise to the same purchasing behavior. Yet this kind of consumer information is not contained in behavior-only data.

* * *

So what’s the solution? Rydholm briefly touched on this topic when he talked about what scientists might discover in their deep data dives – a “set of hypotheses that can be tested.” From where, however, do these hypotheses come? They partly come from the data, of course. But without appropriate background knowledge, a data “scientist” is nothing more than a data “statistician.”

Background knowledge is one’s total knowledge in all fields relevant to a subject of inquiry. For a marketing data scientist, this background knowledge will, of course, include a sold grounding in statistics and data modeling. But more is needed. A marketing data scientist (or, at minimum, the team that she works with) needs a solid background in the market and products under investigation, marketing principles and theories and other fields that are having a profound effect on marketing knowledge today, such as behavioral economics and neuroscience. Using this background knowledge, a data scientist can then develop more useful hypotheses to test. For example, scanner data may show that Product X, a frozen snack, does not sell well relative to a competitor’s Product Y, a similar snack that is sold in the dairy aisle. Attitudinal research can shed light on why: Consumers perceive the dairy version as healthier because it’s found in the dairy section with other healthy foods vs. the freezer section where high-calorie frozen desserts are located. That kind of insight is lost in scanner-only data.

From another perspective, what I’m arguing for is the recognition that all research methods are tools and marketing researchers can no more conduct good analysis by using only big data analysis than a carpenter can use just a hammer to build a house.

So perhaps instead of asking, “Are we ready to become scientists?” we should be asking, “What kind of scientists should we become?”

I imagine that, as dinosaurs slowly slipped into extinction, they were the last ones to notice. It might be the same with marketing research methodologists today. Being a methodologist of sorts myself, it took an unfortunate and seemingly unrelated event to bring the possibility of my professional demise into focus.

Recently, the American Marketing Association (AMA), in a rather clumsy way, purged Marketing Research magazine, a gold mine of accessible research methodology literature, of its long-standing editor-in-chief, two columnists and I’m not really sure how many editorial review board members. All this occurred ostensibly due to a disagreement over censorship. What surprised me most was the AMA’s apparent indifference to the opinions of several giants of the methodological community who stepped forward to complain. It seemed to me that AMA brass simply acted like these very important people did not matter.

What did the AMA see that I wasn’t seeing? Initially, I just chalked it up to stupidity and bad manners. However, concurrent with and most probably prior to the purge, the AMA had been preparing to relaunch and reposition Marketing Research, re-titling it Marketing Insights. It may not be coincidental that just before this magazine undergoes a profound positioning change, the old guard have all voluntarily resigned in protest. Also, why would the AMA completely retool a highly acclaimed publication? The only explanation that made sense, other than incompetence, was that AMA execs might believe the future of marketing will not include methodologists or methodological literature.

Why would they think that? Feeling like a grazing brontosaurus who had just been hit on the head with an errant boulder, I raised my thick skull from the grass and scanned the vista. OMG, how the world has changed! , blogs, peer reviews, Twitter, text mining, Web analytics, Facebook, mobile apps, etc. All these new technologies spewing new kinds of data, together cascading into an unending waterfall of unimaginable size, complexity and diversity: big data.

Big data is everywhere. It’s the Gangnam Style of marketing research; the Next Big Thing. Of course, we don’t even know what big data actually is yet. Articles are popping up everywhere trying to define it. But we know it’s here, we know it’s big and we know it will change marketing research forever.

What’s this got to do with the eradication of research methodologists? Let me quote the title of an article by Chris Anderson to give you a hint: “The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete.” Anderson argues that we no longer need to concern ourselves with causality; correlation will do. We no longer need to hypothesize and test. We have all the data. We can just look. Regardless of the validity of his argument, I do admit big data is reshaping the landscape just like that big asteroid off the Yucatan reshaped the weather.

Big data is not just big. Big data is also different. Old problems, e.g., item collinearity, sparseness, model validity, etc, have been replaced by new problems, e.g., incompatible data sources, vagueness, data management, etc. The old tools need to be replaced by new tools.

But are methodologists becoming irrelevant? Perhaps, in their current form. But regardless of the label placed on analysts, data alone are never enough. David Brooks, in a New York Times op-ed piece “What data can’t do,” writes that big data has many limitations and that human judgment is needed to make big data useful. There still needs to be a human to draw proper conclusions. And the definition of proper is the domain of methodologists.

Guszcza, et al., summarize this point well in “Too big to ignore”: “… analytics initiatives ultimately do not begin with data; they begin with clearly articulated problems to be addressed and opportunities to be pursued. Second, more data does not guarantee better decisions. But the right data – properly analyzed and acted upon – often does.”

Big data is not ushering in a new Cenozoic era, it’s launching a brand new Wild West era. We’re overwhelmed with the three Vs of big data: volume, variety and velocity; to say nothing of the fourth V: vagueness. We don’t yet know what to do or what not to do. So everything is fair game. There are no rules. You’ve got text mining software? Cool! Find out what the world thinks of you. No more sampling. No more sampling error? Not so fast.

The Wild West was a chaotic, dangerous place until the townsfolk all chipped in to pay for a sheriff. Methodologists need to evolve, to be sure. The old techniques will necessarily be replaced with new ones (and old methodologists with younger ones). But the principles of logic and reason that have always been the foundation of methodology still apply. Data do not turn into information on their own. And finding truth – especially relevant, actionable truth – still requires a guiding hand.

Should apps be more prominent in market research and more specifically in customer experience surveys? There are basically two polarized camps when the topic comes up. I think I’ve heard nearly all the arguments.

On the plus side:

• Apps allow you to use the native capability of a smartphone.

• Apps have the best functionality for a smartphone and make surveys easy for customers.

• Apps for market research use are on the increase.

On the minus side:

• Apps for market research use are on the decline.

• Survey apps only make sense when imbedded in a brand’s app or what is referred to as a white-label app.

• No one would ever download an app for a single, event-based survey.

I know: How could apps be on the increase and on the decline? It depends on who you listen to. Several market research companies have chosen to go with mobile app solutions. More troubling are the companies that have focused on one smartphone brand rather than those that comprise the largest market share (Apple, Android and BlackBerry). It’s not hard to understand why they would choose only one. It’s difficult to keep up-to-date with app development considering ongoing device proliferation. Just for starters, each has its own operating system and some have varying screen sizes. But what is the best solution to capture that coveted respondent’s attention?

Well, it depends.

Apps make sense for diary studies and other qualitative work where a respondent or panel member is involved over an extended period of time. It also helps that these individuals are paid for their participation. It even makes sense for mystery shopping, where the same person is engaged in multiple assignments. White-label apps make sense for feedback but push-notification is necessary to proactively engage your customer.

Geolocation fencing (tracking respondents through their mobile device) might be the answer to obtain in-the-moment results but the FTC is recommending that apps obtain “just-in-time” disclosure and consent before allowing access sensitive content like geolocation. It may go further than recommendation to law. Senator Al Franken, D-Minn., proposed a Location Privacy Protection Act which requires mobile apps to obtain permission before collecting and sharing location data. The bill was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in January 2013 and goes before the full Senate next. Will this type of heightened concern about being tracked keep respondents out of mobile apps?

What then is the solution for event-based or transactional follow-up that is the realm of most customer experience programs? Do apps have a place here? I’ll go back to the questions above. Why would a person download an app for a one-time survey, or at best, a periodic survey? Furthermore, would limiting your universe only to people who will download an app (or worse, a single operating system-app) truly represent your customer base?

Where do we go from here?

Over the years, many customer satisfaction programs have moved to Web-based methodologies. As a result, an interesting phenomenon has emerged. It’s the rise of the “unintentional” or “accidental” mobile respondent. They are the customer who is sent or given a link to an online survey who chooses to use their smartphone to complete it.

Maritz Research has been tracking this phenomenon over the past few years. Looking back to the beginning of 2011, smartphone survey starts were less than 5 percent of Maritz Web-based studies. Based on the current trend illustrated below, they are forecasted to be over 20 percent by the end of 2013, with tablets in hot pursuit. (The brighter-colored bars represent estimates of future quarters.)

Because of this trend, Maritz Research has been focused on improving mobile browser rendering. How a survey looks and functions on a mobile device is a reflection of a brand in customer experience programs. Our work takes that into account. We want to extend a brand’s impression in its Web-based survey. We start by addressing the simple issue of mobile sizing and follow through to the other end of the spectrum to mobile optimization. For starters, this includes the best use of a brand’s logo and the presentation of different question types.

Since mobile browsers are approaching the capability of desktop browsers, it is only a matter of time before this technology will make the mobile app obsolete. Forrester Research advocates promoting emerging research methodologies in its What Needs to Happen in Market Research in 2013 white paper. So which one should companies bet on for customer experience programs? I’m placing my chips on mobile browsers.

The year 2012 was a whirlwind of influences on the business landscape – some of them good and some of them not so good. The fiscal cliff, the Presidential election, an anemic economic recovery and Hurricane Sandy’s effects on business are a few things that come to mind. Despite the ever-changing business landscape, one central tenet always rings true: keep your customers happy.

So what can we do in 2013 to continue this mantra?

At Sage, our focus is the customer experience. We’ve done a number of things in the last year that I’d like to share with you. While Sage is a large company, many of the lessons we’ve learned can easily be applied to any business – small or large, in services or manufacturing, a brick-and-mortar or e-commerce. Let me share these lessons with you:

Know your customers and adapt to them. We recognized that our customers had grown accustomed to purchasing products and services in their personal lives on a monthly subscription basis (Netflix is a good example of this) with the benefits of a short-term commitment and without the need to spend a lot of money up front.

To that end, we decided to offer our products in a payment method that our customers are already familiar with: as a recurring service based on subscription. Our business management software is now available as a subscription license, meaning no huge investment up front, which makes it easier for businesses to reduce initial capital expenditure to improve their cash flow and simplify budgeting. We knew this would significantly help our customers – especially in light of the recent economic situation.

Put yourself into your customers’ shoes. Perhaps you can offer more flexible payment or billing options that are more convenient to your customer. If you run an e-commerce business, consider extending your customer service hours by one hour in the morning and one in the evening – to accommodate shoppers in different time zones. If you are a distributor, consider a change to your customer communication regarding their sales orders, perhaps via text message or other more immediate modes of communication.

Give your customers more. As a big firm, Sage has the luxury of access to tons of data – something our customers (who are smaller businesses) typically cannot get their hands on. We took the data that we already had, analyzed it and turned it into actionable information that we could provide to our business partners. We are using the data to help our business partners better serve their clients and understand where there might be opportunities for growth. With this free data, they are now able to identify the highest potential sales opportunities, which, ultimately, help grow their business.

For many shoppers, the first thing they do before visiting a new merchant is check their reviews online and then look for discounts. How can you capitalize on this trend? You can offer coupons on your Web site or social media platforms. Consider developing a loyalty program that gives your most frequent customers discounts and other perks. Also think about other resources you could provide your customers. Perhaps you have a friend or employee who is an expert in an adjacent area who can offer free classes at your business. A bakery, for example, could offer free cake-decorating classes or even jam-preserving classes (adjacent, but still relevant). If you have a manufacturing plant, you could offer your customers discounted shipping during the off-season. If you own a consulting service, consider extending a free hour of advisory services for a particular specialty of your firm.

Show your customers that their feedback really matters. At Sage, we’re constantly reviewing our processes to determine the best ways to deliver a memorable customer experience – one of which is acting on customer feedback. One example can be seen with Sage BusinessCare, a service plan with different levels that provides our customers direction and support based upon how they are using our software. Our customers had provided feedback to us, indicating that the lowest level of Sage BusinessCare, the bronze level, was not providing much value to those who subscribed. We listened to them and, as a result, eliminated the bronze level. This is just one example, but you can use this lesson to do the same with your customers. Take “listening” a step further by backing it up with some action. Your customers will remember and value your business more than the competition.

I’ve never had anyone wear a toga to one of my focus groups, though a bearded man once walked in wearing a floral-print sarong and introduced himself as “the premier ass-waxer” in the city. He went by the name of Bambi. And, yes, he was a great respondent.

Now that I have your attention, I’ll ask for a bit of patience. There is a connection between togas and focus groups but it’s a meandering path. Last summer, Market Strategies launched a center of excellence for qualitative research. The effort has entailed hiring more than a dozen senior researchers from a variety of backgrounds, including brand consulting, advertising and behavioral sciences. A few of my peers have asked what prompted such a large investment in qualitative methods, especially at a time when so much of the research industry is moving toward “a world without questions,” where we rely on methods like big data, social media monitoring and neuroscience to find answers without ever engaging a respondent in a dialogue. All of those methods have a home at Market Strategies and merit their own investments – but none is about to replace qualitative research.

Our mission is to help clients make confident business decisions – but confidence is a subjective and variable trait. For some people, confidence comes from a robust sample and precise measurements. For many senior decision-makers, however, we continue to find that the voice of the customer – the literal voice of the customer – is irreplaceable. Quantitative research does numerous things that qualitative methods can’t begin to duplicate, but before an exec is willing to place a major bet on a new product or reposition a brand, it’s rare that confidence comes without actually listening to potential customers in real time. Conviction comes most powerfully from the evidence we gather with our own senses and in-person methods, in particular, remain unparalleled for generating conviction.

And that’s where the Greeks come in. Or Aristotle, anyway. In his Rhetoric, Aristotle notes that there are three principal components of any argument:

• Logos (which is Greek for “word”), which refers to the logical claims of an argument – its clarity, its evidence, its internal logic.
• Pathos (Greek for “experience”… or, curiously, “suffering” – but I’ll leave that for another blog), which is a speaker’s ability to evoke an emotional response in the audience.
• Ethos (Greek for “character”), which refers to a speaker’s credibility – how the perception of the speaker’s character affects the perception of the message itself.

Survey research is a brilliant tool for isolating the kernel that underlies logos – for stripping away the elements of persuasion that go beyond the pure logical appeal of an argument. But the lived experience of hearing that argument come from a flesh-and-blood person – a person you feel you can take the measure of (ethos) and whose passion you feel as you listen to them convey their own experience through stories (pathos) – carries a rhetorical weight that top-two-box scores struggle to match.

Any seasoned qualitative researcher has seen the way that research stakeholders will continue to refer to notable respondents by name, in some cases years after the research is done. Because of the rhetorical power of human speech – the simultaneous experience of logos, ethos and pathos – it’s no surprise that the highest-stakes projects are the ones that always require video reels. As Aristotle knew, great rhetoric compels conviction. And conviction is the catalyst for business action.

This may not be fair (at least, not in a Vulcan outcomes analysis) and it may not even be uniformly good. We’ve all seen a stakeholder get carried away by one particularly credible respondent who made a brilliantly impassioned argument, even though it contradicted the general trend of the findings. But, used responsibly, qualitative research is a powerful tool for helping us create the conviction that leads to confident business decisions, particularly when experienced in person. Through his thoughtful demeanor and articulate responses, “Bambi” deployed all the classical tools of Aristotelian rhetoric and – despite the sarong – helped move a Fortune 500 company’s strategy forward as a result.