THIS MONTH'S DILEMMA IS POSED BY A CONSUMER
INSIGHTS MANAGER IN A NATIONAL COMPANY:

We recently tested some new product concepts in focus groups. The participants were recruited from our customer lists instead of the usual external networks. The next day we found that a participant had posted a lengthy article, under his full name, on a widely read industry website. It described the test concepts, the process and the group's opinions. There were many disparaging comments about the products and his fellow participants. He also implied his own opinions had not been genuine. Suffice to say senior management were ‘not happy'.

When asked, the researcher explained that participants had not been asked to sign their standard confidentiality agreement due to a combination of factors - the unusual recruitment channel (our customers) and a new host. However, senior management have asked me to reply to the participant in some way, although they know nothing was signed.

Can we, and should we, follow up with the participant (we have their phone, address and email details)? Who should contact them? What would you say about their behaviour and attitude? As a matter of principle how should we react to a deliberate, malicious breach of the research agreement by a respondent/customer, whether explicitly signed off or not? 

‘So many issues, so let's unpack them. First, the unprofessional conduct of the agency. New product development and positioning are the heart and soul of the business; the consequences are millions of dollars in direct and indirect investment. Not protecting this with something as simple and standard as a confidentiality agreement, and then to try and dodge responsibility by pushing the blame onto others for nonsensical reasons, is staggering in its unprofessionalism. If the concept is very important, I would be talking with our lawyers as it no minor issue.

‘As for the blogger - unless this person is central to industry opinion and likely to determine the success of the product, do not give him oxygen. Entering into a dialogue in the hope of turning him around to make him a brand ambassador, or some other catch phrase, is the same as giving the schoolyard bully your pocket money in the hope he will be your best friend.

‘If the blogger is central to the industry (very unlikely given he was interviewed in a group) and the disparaging comments about his peers and his own conduct - then the company needs to speak with him and any other key opinion leaders (KOL) who may have read the comments, urgently. The lesson for the client is to treat their KOL as leaders and not people you outsource your contact with and as anonymous voices. But I suspect the privacy and copyright bits were also left off the group form.'

Sean McNally, consumer and market insight manager - Australia, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Health Care

‘Some might argue that there is nothing to be gained from talking to the disparaging participant and doing so could indeed only add fuel to the fire for client and agency.

‘We believe that it would be useful for the research agency to establish if the comments made on the website were a response to attitudes to the client (the customer could be aggrieved), the research process, or the concepts themselves, in an effort to avoid similar outcomes in the future. A company response on the industry website may be in order.

‘The participant can be contacted and should be contacted by another qualitative researcher - not the researcher who conducted the group - they will be well equipped to probe to understand the motives for the comments and to receive feedback in an objective frame of mind.

‘Every breach of the agreement probably needs to be judged on its own demerits. There may be times when it just isn't worth reacting. What the agency must do, however, is ensure that every respondent signs a validation statement complete with confidentiality clause so action can be taken if deemed appropriate.'

Pamela Ingall, head of Millward Brown Firelfly

‘I'd say you should absolutely follow up! But the fact is, you should have known this could or would happen. Given the social media exposure, you should do it in two ways (and several parts). First, the researcher should phone the participant directly and express disappointment at the posting - no admonishment, no anger, just disappointment. See if there's a real problem the customer has that was the trigger behind the action. Perhaps you've done wrong by them. If so, that's something you can fix. No only is it likely to end up being good PR, as this sort of customer service (as that's what it is) usually wins over even disgruntled customers, it should expose any product or process issues you have. If, on the other hand, the customer is simply cranky and a troublemaker, it gives you the chance to figure that out.

‘Second, you should respond in public in comments (assuming they are available) on the piece online, or if not, on your own web site (or also on your own web site. Your tone, even if you believe yourself to be in the right, should be conciliatory - "you seem to have a problem, we'd love to help solve it, what can we do?" This kind of response makes you look like the good guy - if you were already in the right, you look very moderate and considered, if you do have problems, it makes you look like you're listening (I hope you already are!). This kind of online criticism is a critical factor in business that any organisation should now be monitoring for. Reacting to it after the fact, rather than being a pre-emptive and positive player in the conversation about you online shows you aren't adequately aware of the power of the online channel. When I work with clients, setting up ongoing monitoring and audits of online chatter about their brand and products is a key component of our work.

‘We also work together to ensure that their staff are trained in participating online on an ongoing basis as a method for building trust and reputation in online communities.'

Stephen Collins, Acid Labs (#2 Australian marketing blogger ranked by The Population - a digital strategy agency - and B&T magazine. He is also ranked in Advertising Age's Ad Age Power 150.)

Read another real (but unrelated) blog by a research participant here: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/07/australian-government-web-publishing.html

Print this page



Other Articles in this edition