group approves of them or disregards them immediately, because the group gave it a thumbs down. Napoleon concludes, “Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.” With focus groups, a scapegoat is produced and marketers feel a false sense of security when in reality, rock, paper, scissors would be equally effective.

Qualitative data via one-on-one s

A sovereign’s first duty is doubtless to conform with the wishes of the people; but what the people say is scarcely ever what they wish: their desires and their wants cannot be learned from their own mouths so well as they are to be read in the heart of their prince.” -Napoleon Bonaparte

At Stealing Share™, we insist on conducting primary research for our clients because we understand the brand value of the nuances within the market place when developing brand strategies. We have yet to encounter a client with existing research worth the paper upon which it is printed. Research, as currently practiced, is stagnant, describing the market as it currently is, finding solutions and ideas that are already currently known. In turn, profitable revelations rendered from current research processes are few and far between. Failure resides not in the methodology, but in the process leading to the research study.

When research studies depend solely upon the focus group process, failure is imminent. Marketers use focus groups as means to cover their butts in case of the unexpected negative result. Focus groups are comparable to hand towels with regard to coverage, functional after dinner, but utterly futile after a long shower. Research should prove projectable, and focus groups most certainly are not. Neither positive response nor negative response from focus groups is reliable. Within one focus group, there will be a wide spectrum of responses ranging from positive to negative and everything in between.

Many ideas are hailed because the focus group approves of them or disregards them immediately, because the group gave it a thumbs down. Napoleon concludes, “Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.” With focus groups, a scapegoat is produced and marketers feel a false sense of security when in reality, rock, paper, scissors would be equally effective.

Qualitative data via one-on-one st

d the brand value of the nuances within the market place when developing brand strategies. We have yet to encounter a client with existing research worth the paper upon which it is printed. Research, as currently practiced, is stagnant, describing the market as it currently is, finding solutions and ideas that are already currently known. In turn, profitable revelations rendered from current research processes are few and far between. Failure resides not in the methodology, but in the process leading to the research study.

When research studies depend solely upon the focus group process, failure is imminent. Marketers use focus groups as means to cover their butts in case of the unexpected negative result. Focus groups are comparable to hand towels with regard to coverage, functional after dinner, but utterly futile after a long shower. Research should prove projectable, and focus groups most certainly are not. Neither positive response nor negative response from focus groups is reliable. Within one focus group, there will be a wide spectrum of responses ranging from positive to negative and everything in between.

Many ideas are hailed because the focus group approves of them or disregards them immediately, because the group gave it a thumbs down. Napoleon concludes, “Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.” With focus groups, a scapegoat is produced and marketers feel a false sense of security when in reality, rock, paper, scissors would be equally effective.

Qualitative data via one-on-one s

research processes are few and far between. Failure resides not in the methodology, but in the process leading to the research study.

When research studies depend solely upon the focus group process, failure is imminent. Marketers use focus groups as means to cover their butts in case of the unexpected negative result. Focus groups are comparable to hand towels with regard to coverage, functional after dinner, but utterly futile after a long shower. Research should prove projectable, and focus groups most certainly are not. Neither positive response nor negative response from focus groups is reliable. Within one focus group, there will be a wide spectrum of responses ranging from positive to negative and everything in between.

Many ideas are hailed because the focus group approves of them or disregards them immediately, because the group gave it a thumbs down. Napoleon concludes, “Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.” With focus groups, a scapegoat is produced and marketers feel a false sense of security when in reality, rock, paper, scissors would be equally effective.

Qualitative data via one-on-one s

functional after dinner, but utterly futile after a long shower. Research should prove projectable, and focus groups most certainly are not. Neither positive response nor negative response from focus groups is reliable. Within one focus group, there will be a wide spectrum of responses ranging from positive to negative and everything in between.

Many ideas are hailed because the focus group approves of them or disregards them immediately, because the group gave it a thumbs down. Napoleon concludes, “Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.” With focus groups, a scapegoat is produced and marketers feel a false sense of security when in reality, rock, paper, scissors would be equally effective.

Qualitative data via one-on-one s

group approves of them or disregards them immediately, because the group gave it a thumbs down. Napoleon concludes, “Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.” With focus groups, a scapegoat is produced and marketers feel a false sense of security when in reality, rock, paper, scissors would be equally effective.

Qualitative data via one-on-one studies is the most beneficial acquisition and even that data should only be utilized as preliminary direction for the quantitative research. Quantitative data is the main course and yet rarely makes it out of the oven and onto the table. We conduct this research about a third of the way through the project. Preceding work, which considers the consumer above all else, indicates the effectiveness and value of the research immediately following.

Beliefs direct human behavior, and we insist on the completion of behavior modeling before conducting any research. The modeling projects preceptive beliefs that affect brand purchases, trial, and loyalty. Only after we recognize these possibilities do we embark upon the research questionnaire. We look to discover what “can be” or “should be” in addition to what IS. Most research acts as a snapshot of the existing market when the real value of research lies in the testing of possibilities. A few basic precepts we use when organizing research are: 1) Don’t ask questions to which you know the answer. 2) Before you ask a question, ask yourself what you can achieve from the answer. If it is not actionable, do not bother asking. 3) When you test the value of precepts, test the level of importance (i.e. using a 1-5 scale). 4) Never conduct research until after you establish direction and strategy. Test these plans.

For example, one client conducted research for years with studies asking the customer what they considered important and why they considered it important. They also tested the standard awareness i