00POINT OF VIEW

STAN STHANUNATHAN

ADMAP JULY-AUGUST 2012

is a series of intellectual manoeuvres, a massage of numbers, and profound justifications to defend the original story. In the process, we forget that we started all this with an aim to achieve perfection. What went wrong? I can’t help but quote Einstein, who said: “A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem.” We need to define who we want to be or else somebody else will define it for us.

The insights profession needs to make a choice between subservience or thought leadership, and risk mitigation or opportunity creation. While the choice is very clear and obvious to everyone, breaking away from risk-averse behaviour, stemming from years of conditioning is never easy. There are many things to consider.

Firstly, using the past to predict the future reeks of ‘incrementality’. In the last decade, most industries have experienced anaemic growth rates. Focusing on share gains within a fixed pie will end up as a value-destroying activity over time. The need of the hour is step-change – a new way in which businesses figure out how to grow the pie. In this new world order, the role of the function is not just about providing insights – it is all about inspiration and provocations that will drive transformational actions. This calls for excellence, big and bold thinking, and not perfection.

This can happen only if we divert more and more money from ‘rear-view research’ to ‘forward-looking research’. Our role is to ignite passion and help businesses to dream again.

Does it then mean that we should abandon accuracy and perfection? No. Accuracy is table stakes, but attempts to raise accuracy levels beyond reasonable levels, in a pursuit of perfection, can be a value-destroying activity.

When we raise the game and tell engaging stories, the dialogue always moves from technique/craft/accuracy/perfection, to business impact. We need to move the dialogue quickly from the ‘what’ to ‘so what’ to ‘now what’. When that happens, a seat at the table happens automatically.

After 100 years of history as a profession, if we are still bemoaning not having a seat at the table, surely it is time we took big steps to change the course of the industry and the function. Aiming for perfection is certainly not going to get us there. If we continue to focus single-mindedly on perfection, it becomes the enemy of greatness.

Imperfection is goodInsights professionals often plead for a ‘seat at the top table’. What they should ask themselves is: “How do you earn a seat at the table?” and, the bigger question, “Who gets a seat at the table?”

In answering these questions, the sagacious insights person would do well to understand, and reflect on, the history of our profession.

The market research industry is around 100 years old. It has its roots in measurement. Initially, measurement was focused on understanding the past – the readership of a magazine or the listenership of a radio station, for example. The function’s DNA was defined by its roots. This definition of the DNA became more entrenched over time when marketing as a function started demanding more measurement, more validation and better ways to reduce the risk in marketing decisions. All this resulted in research money going after ‘rear view’ research. Even today, 70% to 80% of budgets are spent on measuring and understanding the past. Not surprisingly, it almost becomes an imperative to measure it better and better. Thus starts the pursuit of research perfection.

We tend to aim for perfection because very often our stakeholders ask a profound question: “How sure are you about what you are saying?” This tends to send researchers into defensive mode. Measuring what has already taken place is relatively easy, but what often follows from such a question is a need to measure these events with an ever increasing degree of precision. We know only too well that increasing accuracy from 80% to 85% is much more

expensive and time consuming than increasing accuracy from 70% to 75%.

So the search for precision is an expensive business, and constrained by an economic environment of finite and sometimes shrinking budgets, researchers tend to evolve into risk-mitigators who pretend to tell their clients, with a very

high degree of confidence, that their marketing decisions are either solid or weak.

They go home happy only to be called by the client a few days later with the

observation: “Your results were very different from

our actual in-market experience…just how sure are you about what you are saying?”

What follows

13

question is a need to measure these events with an ever increasing degree of precision. We know only too well that increasing accuracy from 80% to 85% is much more

expensive and time consuming than increasing accuracy from 70% to 75%.

So the search for precision is an expensive business, and constrained by an economic environment of finite and sometimes shrinking budgets, researchers tend to evolve into risk-mitigators who pretend to tell their clients, with a very

high degree of confidence, that their marketing decisions are either solid or weak.

They go home happy only to be called by the client a few days later with the

observation: “Your results were very different from

our actual in-market experience…just how sure are you about what you are saying?”

ADM July Stan_2nd.indd 3 6/20/2012 16:19:27