Jan 272014

As I and others (see this great post by Reg Baker in 2011) have been pointing out, people have been saying mobile is the next big thing for over 15 years, even in the days when that meant SMS, or WAP, or writing 100s of apps for different types of phones. At conferences and client sessions I keep being asked “So, when will mobile be the big thing?”

The answer is that it is now a big thing, and it has been for probably 18 months or more. There are lots of interesting aspects to why mobile is so important, its role in mobile ethnography, its role in audience measurement, its use in location based services, and the gloss that is the quantified self.

But there are two massive areas that outweigh all others. The first is online and the second is CATI.

I have been talking to a wide range of survey providers as part of the book on mobile market research I am writing with Navin Williams and Sue York (due out in September) and there is a consensus that about 20% to 30% of online surveys are being taken (or attempted) by people using mobile devices – and the number is still climbing. If you are doing online research you are almost certainly doing mobile research – the question is whether you are doing it well?

The second big indicator is the way that CATI centres are having to change their calling patterns to recruit more mobile phone users. The US Pew Center (a body that still try to do research right) recently changed its ratio so that 60% of its calls will be with people on mobile phones in the US. The picture is even stronger in the developing markets, interviewer face-to-face is moving to mCAPI, CATI is dominated by mobile (because that is what people have), and companies like Jana and TNS are conducting masses of research on feature phones using SMS or USSD.

So, passive data, iBeacon triggering, app collecting, HTML5 friendly, tap and squeeze mobile research is very interesting, and growing, but mobile becoming the dominant element in CATI and perhaps one-third of all online by the end of this year means it has arrived and it is very big – very big.

So, at last, we can all, me included, stop asking when mobile is going to arrive and focus more on the best uses today, and the best options for tomorrow.

Oh, and if you want to start wondering about the next big thing after mobile, start wondering when messaging apps, like WhatsApp, SnapChat and especially WeChat become the dominant form of interpersonal communication (displacing SMS on the way).


Jan 222014

Almost every week there is a key discussion in the NewMR LinkedIn group, tackling a specific topic of interest. This week I asked “In 3 years, what % of adults will have a mobile phone, how many will be smartphones, and how many will be connected to the internet?” and broke this down into three questions:

  1. In January 2017, what percentage of the world’s adults do you think will have a mobile phone? By which I mean the percentage of people who have at least one phone (or phablet).
  2. What percentage of the world’s population will have a smartphone?
  3. What percentage of the world’s population will have a 3G, 4G or similar connection to the internet?

There are lots of interesting replies from people such as: Siim Teller, Etienne Zervaas, and Thomas Ball, and I encourage you to check the discussion out.

But, I thought I would share my replies with this blog as well as the discussion.

What percentage of the world’s adult population will have a mobile phone in 2017?
The ITU estimate that there are about 7 billion phones in use, allowing about 1.8 per actual user, deduct about 1.5 billion people as children, some of whom have phones and we are currently at about 65% of global adults with a mobile phone. So, in three years my guess is that we’ll be in the range 80% to 85%. However, if we were talking about adults of working age, with any form of income, I think it would be 95% by 2017.

What percentage of the world’s population will have a smartphone?
About 55% of phones being sold at the moment are smartphones according to IDC. Many people replace their phones in 3 or fewer years, and the rate will increase from 55%, so I am going to say 70% of people with phones in 2017 will have a smartphone (they may also have an older phone in many cases) – so about 60% of the global adult population.

How many will have mobile connections to the internet?
The ITU publish mobile phones subscriptions and mobile internet subscriptions, so we can see the ratio. In 2007 mobile internet subs were 8% of mobile phone subs, and it climbed steadily until 2011, when it was 19%. Then it jumped and 2012 was 24% and 2013 31% – so by 2017 I expect the ratio to be 50% – i.e. half of mobile phones having a subscription to something like 3G or 4G or something that approximates to it. So my guess is about 40%-45% of adults will be using the mobile web, or about 50% of the world’s adults of working age with some sort of income.

My estimate is lower than most of the others so far, but even it is awesome in its implications – half the world connected to the internet, via mobiles. If you have not started getting ready for 2017, it may be already too late to get ready in time?


Jan 192014

As part of the book on Mobile Market Research that we are working on we are including some tips on how to stay up to date in terms of mobile market research.

Here is the list we have at the moment:

  • Workshops and conferences organised by research bodies such as ESOMAR and MRS.
  • The MRMW series of conferences (Market Research in the Mobile World) organised by the Merlien organisation.
  • The Global Market Research report (annual) and the Global Prices Study (every two years) from ESOMAR.
  • The yearly GRIT report from GreenBook.
  • The Confirmit Annual Market Research Software report.
  • The Mobile Course provided by the University of Georgia’s Principles of Marketing Research course.
  • Online events and recordings at NewMR.org, and its Mobile reference page NewMR.org/mobile.
  • Useful sources of data and information include ITU, press releases and reports from IDC and Gartner, and reports available from the Pew Research Center (www.pewresearch.org/).
  • Useful news sites/blogs include: Mashable.com, Techcrunch.com, ZDNet.com, and cnet.com.


Jan 162014
No Pedestrians

When I talk to research users, one of the most common themes I hear is dissatisfaction with customer satisfaction research (and its new expansion into customer experience). Key problems appear to be:

  • It tends to be based on people’s memory rather than their current or recent experiences, resulting in inaccurate measurements.
  • Halo effects can swamp actual, real-time experiences and distort the recalled evaluations. For example, if somebody likes an experience they are prone to say everything was good. However, if the experience was negative they are prone to describe most of the experience as negative – this makes the findings less actionable.
  • The research is often targeted at phenomena that are of little interest to research participants. For example, questions about how a customer is greeted at the bank or supermarket can result in blunt and hazy measurements if users do not find that aspect salient to them.
  • A company’s area of interest is often too wide to create a meaningful research instrument. One consequence of the breadth of interest has been the creation of ever longer customer satisfaction surveys, delivering ever lower levels of satisfaction to the users of the research.
  • Customer satisfaction and experience is a lagged measure, it talks about what happened, not what is happening. The longer the delay between the measurement and the reporting, the more lagged the information is, meaning it can’t be used proactively in managing a brand or service.

One of drivers of the current problems with customer satisfaction research is that it is used for two incompatible purposes:

  1. To find out what should be changed and what should be retained to maximise the success of the brand.
  2. To measure the performance of the organisation, often to the extent of including customer satisfaction KPIs in pay and bonus calculations.

A system that helps improve a brand should be agile, finding out the current pain points, digging into them, helping solve them, and moving on. But a measure of performance needs to be consistent and needs to reflect the organisation’s goals (which are not necessarily customers’ issues).

My recommendation would be to use a very simple, inexpensive, and transparent model to evaluate the organisation – for example sales, profit, or NPS. This leaves the organisation free to use tactical approaches to tackle customer satisfaction and experience. One great resource for this sort of research is provided by insight communities, working with customers to optimise the brand.


Jan 142014
Navin Headshot Square

Posted by Navin Wlliams, CEO MobileMeasure Consultancy Ltd, Shanghai, China.

Editors note: Navin is known as a leading expert of mobile market research and has been posting his forecasts for a few years and kindly shared his 2014 forecast with us.

2013 was a year of consolidation of the market in the mobile space. With Android settling into its leadership position and Apple’s iOS having a relatively good year too. The other operating systems have largely fallen by the wayside. With mobile finally settling the fight with online and finally being recognized as a tour de force too, it’s a good time to put on my soothsayer hat and share my vision of how 2014 is going to pan out.

OS sales shares

Source: Kantar Worldpanel ComTech, via CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57616679-37/iphone-market-share-shrinks-as-android-windows-phone-grow/

Winner Takes All – Android

In last year’s post I talked about Android dominating the mobile landscape and eventually by getting prices down to a sub US$100 mark make analysts relook at the Feature phone and Smartphone definition by the end of 2013. This has not really happened as we still have these definitions widely in use. However no one is obsessing over these definitions as it is well recognized that the formerly dominant Feature phones are a dying breed. From a competing set point of view the only recognized feature phone is Nokia’s S40 series which are now restricted to just the existing installed base, can only lose from here on as Nokia by adopting and then being sold to Microsoft becomes a Windows phone led platform. Other than the S-40 feature phones, the other feature phones in the market, dominated by the proprietary systems built by Chinese manufacturers disappeared overnight as they didn’t need to develop their own OS to save license costs, but could adopt an established OS in the form of the Android. So not only did Android eat into shrinking Nokia OS share, but the other feature phone OSs and the other dying OSs like Blackberry as well.

Android closed 2012 as the No. 1 player and in 2013 they helped grow the Phablet phenomena. And though in 2013 the Android Tablet share did grow, it’s their Phablets that got much more airplay. In 2014 expect to see Android phablets to dominate the landscape and in turn help them grow the share of Android Tablets as well.

Too Big to Fail Still ? – Apple & iOS

Considering the market dynamics in 2013, Apple and its iOS did admirably well. They didn’t :

  • grow their screen size significantly;
  • deliver a true low cost phone to take on the bottom half of the mobile handset pyramid;
  • come up with any serious ground breaking innovations.
Screen size: Apple has long maintained that the size of their screen was optimum and anything bigger will get too big to handle. They did however reduce the frame area and grow the screen diagonally larger. This however paled in comparison with the competing phone manufacturers churning out significantly larger screens and bringing to the fore a whole new category in “Phablets”.

Low Cost Phone: to be fair, Apple did bring out the 5C, which is US$649, which for most of the world is not exactly “C for Cheap” and still keeps it in the premium smart phone bracket. This phone though did not set the market on fire, it definitely went a long way in keep its Smartphone share up.

Innovation: Apple built its persona around product innovation, however in 2013 we haven’t seen much of it. Though wearable technology which syncs to your iphone has been talked about for a while now, the iwatch never materialized.

In 2012, Apple was a dominant force in the Smartphone market, in 2013 they fought valiantly and maintained their position in key markets but also lost share to a rampaging Android in 2013. In 2014, they will have to address all three issues of Screen size, Low Cost and Innovation or will it be the year that they lose a lot of the shine they have built around themselves. Will Apple play by the conventional rules or look to reinvent themselves and the industry as they often have in the past?

Mend and Grow year – Nokia & Windows Mobile

While 2013 was labeled as the make or break year for Nokia and Windows, 2014 is going to be mend and grow. If you take away the declining numbers of the final years of Nokia and look only at Windows as a Greenfield entry they have done admirably well in 2013. With the buying out of Nokia by Microsoft, it becomes the second non hardware technology company after Google –Motorola to enter the mobile hardware arena.

Though currently in the Smartphone market, Windows has done admirably well by being the third player often edging out Blackberry or a close forth behind Blackberry. 2014 is when we can truly evaluate its performance. In 2014 we can expect a flurry of launches of new models at multiple price points and screen sizes. Coupled with the formidable marketing arm of Microsoft and the former Nokia teams, expect them to at least double their market share across markets.

The New King – Samsung

A couple of years ago, Samsung was the challenger. Today, they are dominating the manufacturer’s sweepstakes trying to keep the other manufacturers at bay. After having introduced the Phablet with the Note phone series, they have grown the category exponentially and dominated it as well. In 2013 they showed that they are not just riding on Android and large screens to dominate the market place. They introduced the Galaxy Gear which included a watch phone with the top end Samsung Galaxy phones purchased. The much talked about iWatch in the blogsphere seems to have been missed by Apple and was picked up and dished out by Samsung instead. So Samsung is looking to take the lead in the innovation stakes to create a persona all its own. The Samsung Galaxy gear smart watch may turn out to be more of an interesting gimmick than a serious utility tool, but it’s too early to call.

In 2014 we can expect Samsung to continue to dominate the Smartphones especially the Phablets, larger screens and with their Galaxy Gear added to their arsenal, they also have a serious differentiator. On the not so bright side, of all the manufacturers Samsung has the most to lose as they like Nokia before them play across the price and product spectrum. They should have a tough year but hold onto their leadership position.

The Dead Dead – Blackberry

The highlight of 2013 for BB was the announcement of its all new Blackberry 10 OS which was delayed constantly and when it finally got launched was a little to late and didn’t introduce anything innovative to retain anyone’s attention. So from living dead to dead dead, is where BB finds itself.

Though to be fair to them they still have a large corporate business stuck at the hip and for many of these corporates wanting to migrate their secure mobile systems moving to another system is a tough choice. Something like self-amputation vs. rebuilding the Pyramids – both tough decisions. Many have bitten the bullet and others are still building plans. So there’s still an opportunity for BB to revive itself.

Out of the Shadows – Made in China

If we saw the Chinese manufacturers coming of age in 2013, expect 2014 to be their graduation party. The biggest impact is going to be from the Chinese manufacturers with the likes of Huawei, Lenovo and ZTE all making both affordable and top end Smartphones for the global market. Taiwanese manufacturer HTC is a fallen star hoping to revive their fortunes. And there are the Indian manufacturers who until now were content with the Indian market are getting ambitious and looking for foreign shores as well.

Expect at least 2-3 of the top 5 manufacturers to be Chinese manufacturers in 2014. It would be pretty safe to assume all 5 will be “made in China”.

Market Research and Mobile Market Research

Accidents Happen: If 2012 was for probing and experimenting, 2013 saw the term accidental mobile research being coined. Accidental mobile research is research which takes place from a mobile phone but is meant to happen online. And enough of these accidents happened for online survey providers to take notice and tweak their online surveys to identify if a user was indeed trying to fill out the survey from a mobile phone and therefore should see a more mobile friendly mobile rendered survey. However this did not really help as these may have been rendered for mobile but were not designed for mobile. They were designed for online and force fed on mobile, though it was within the confines and legible on the mobile screen. This is borne out of the bench mark tests done across online survey providers showing a consistent pattern of mobile exceeding online survey completion times by 50%. So while this number makes me very unhappy, from an industry point of view maybe it’s a point to rejoice as it’s a step ahead from “mobile is too small” to acknowledging that surveys need to be rendered appropriately for the mobile phone. In 2014, expect to see surveys designs to be mobile specific. A question is asked, which is answered via a drag and drop online, while the same question is answered using taps and selections on mobile enabling the times to be close or match when done either on the mobile or online by the survey respondent.

More Than a Talking Point: I was recently at a Qualitative conference (not a Mobile Market Research Conference) in Singapore and I noticed that only 2 speakers in the entire 2 days could get through without referring to Mobile in their presentations. Many like myself, presented specific mobile cases and examples. I actually spoke on the first day and a lot of what I was presenting was mentioned or covered before I came into speak later in the day. And often on most conferences I speak at, either I am the lone speaker (or niche) on a mobile topic be it a mobile or any other Research conference. Expect more informed discussion on the same in 2014.

Norms: One of the biggest barriers to entry often for research products and services is norms. Expect this to be re-evaluated across providers, as mobile is another animal. We will get different results as the context for mobile data makes the data different. So it’s not that the consumer is lying or the world has changed so much, just that mobile can contextualize a survey and give results that also differ. For instance when we do a pantry check survey on mobile, we request they go to the pantry and upload a picture as well and then fill the survey giving added insights from the mobile picture as well. The same survey done online though it had the option to take a photo and upload, no one did it as it was too cumbersome. Most in fact didn’t even visit the pantry and reported on memory. So eventually at the broad level (key brands) we got the same results, however it was the things that got left out in the responses of the online survey were the most revealing in the study. One of the additional insights was that some product packaging (like cereal boxes) was too big for standard pantries of the target group we were seeing a lot of when conducting the research.

Wearable Tech: 2013 saw Google Glass and other wearable tech like Samsung Galaxy Gear Smart Watch make headlines and showcased across the world. In 2014 expect both these technologies and other similar ones to penetrate more and more lives of consumers. As researchers we will get a ring side seat to the numerous market research applications and how the smartest (or fools) of us dives into it to extract the insightful gems that we all seek.

Messaging Apps: SMS is in decline, that was the big story of 2013. This came as Messaging Apps like WeChat and WhatsApp thrived. Though WhatsApp was the pioneer, it has taken a back seat to the innovative copy cat being WeChat. Not only did WeChat copy WhatsApp (or can you call building another messaging app as truly copying?), either way they didn’t stop there. They made it bigger and better, growing to 700+ million globally at last count. In 2014, expect more and more market researchers to dive in enhance the power of market research via mobile messaging Apps.

And finally a word of advice …

Youth: While the benefit of grey cells is never in doubt, especially in a knowledge industry like market research. In Mobile Market Research youth is a huge scoring point, with even non technical kids wield a mobile like it were putty in their hands. In 2014, go engage and learn from the young who are using the mobile intuitively as an extension of themselves and not as a device to be used – it’s part of them.

Go forth and mobilize. Enjoy your 2014!

Navin has close to two decades of experience spread across Market Research, Technology, Media & Telecom sectors. Having worked with the top global agencies spread over 4 countries and 2 continents; he’s had the opportunity to be part of MR technological adoptions over the years in diverse developing environments. Navin has spent the better part of the last decade on new media technology and his quest to drive Mobile adoption in Market Research led him to form MOBILEMEASURE CONSULTANCY.

A pioneer in mobile enabled MR, Navin is widely regarded as a thought-leader in the evolution of digital technology in MR, he has written a number of Whitepapers and is a frequent speaker at industry conferences. Recently he was involved in the designing and writing of the curriculum for University of Georgia’s Mobile Marketing Research course and is currently working on a book on Mobile MR.

Navin is based in Shanghai, China with his wife and two Children. He can be reached at navin@mobile-measure.com


Jan 112014

Google’s standing with privacy groups and legislators has probably never been lower. Problems include: the recent news that some of Google’s activities have been ruled illegal by four countries (France, Netherlands, Germany, and Spain – with fines being levied by Spain and France), following fast on the heels of Google’s problems in Europe with how little tax it pays, $40million dollar fines in the US over ‘cookiegate’, $7million fine in the US for Wi-Fi data collected illegally from its street view cars, and most recently the concern that Google’s integration of Google+ and Gmail means that people can send messages to you without knowing your email address.

Does any of this matter? Sure Google has been fined, but the sums only account to small change for a company as large and successful as Google. Privacy campaigners are outraged, but usage of Google’s services continue to grow (look at the way Android has quickly become the leading operating system on new phones and tablets). But would governments really try to tackle Google? Could Governments try to tackle Google?

Perhaps there are some interesting lessons in history, especially in the United States, consider two important examples.

Standard Oil
Standard Oil began in 1870 and was a massive success. Standard Oil got rich by increasing the availability oil and by driving the price of it down. By its developments it enhanced the growth of the US, its scientists developed key technologies, and the end customers benefitted. However, its competitors did badly. Using techniques that were legal at the time, and common practice at the time, Standard Oil crippled its competitors and made life very hard for its suppliers – for example giving discounts (rebates) to rail companies for their oil in return for better treatment by the rail companies for Standard Oil, which meant worse treatment for its competitors. From 1906 to 1911 the US authorities prosecuted Standard Oil, using anti-trust legislation, resulting in the breaking up of Standard Oil.

AT&T was a powerhouse of US telecommunications, but was derailed by government action. In 1956 anti-trust rulings prevented AT&T from entering non-regulated parts of the IT and telecommunications industry, but by 1982 it had developed a monopolistic hold on parts of the US telephone business. Following action by the government and courts AT&T (‘Ma Bell’) was forced to created seven regional telephone companies (‘Baby Bells’).

So, will any of this happen to Google? Or, will action be taken by Governments elsewhere (either in terms of restrictions or in terms of the promotion of a competitor in the way the European governments helped Airbus compete with Boeing)? It is impossible to say at the moment.

Action was nearly taken against Microsoft in its heyday. Some of its actions were trimmed, billions of dollars were paid in fines, but the wheels moved very slowly. By the time the US and European governments were getting close to real action, Microsoft’s power had already started to wane.

But, if I were to advise Google I would suggest being a better citizen. If push ever comes to shove it is better to have the public on your side.


Jan 072014

As part of the book on mobile market research that Sue York, Navin Williams and I are writing we need to give an overview of mobile qual, before going into depth. Do you think the image below helps?


  • What are we missing?
  • What would you change?
  • What about the titles for the segments?

By WE-research we mean projects where participants are recruited to capture a variety of qualitative data about their lives. They might be asked to capture images of waste, or videos of travel problems, or audio comments about the school run, for example. The term WE-research was introduced by Mark Earls and John Kearnon a few years ago. But, do you have a better term for this type of research?

We are planning on three chapters on qualitative research, indeed we have written three chapters, an overview which covers all four segments above, followed by chapters specifically on the top two segments. Our view on techniques like passive tracking, Google Glass etc is that there is simply not enough material yet to have a chapter on it, there is too little experience around.

If you’d like to help by reviewing one or more of these three chapters, please email ray.poynter@thefutureplace.com – we’ll acknowledge you contribution in the book :-)

Jan 062014

Have you ever stopped to wonder how many of your Twitter followers are fake? Or, more importantly, when you or your client are buying endorsements from somebody with a mega number of followers, are they real. Or, if you are trying measure influence, what figure should you attribute somebody with?

Back in November of last year, StatusPeople.com did an analysis of Katie Perry and come up with an estimate that 42% of her followers were fake, 36% were inactive, and 22% were good. Of course with nearly 50 million followers, even 22% good produces quite a few people.

For the loss of a small amount of privacy (you have to sign in with your Twitter account), you can check your own ratio of fake followers with StatusPeople – my score showed that I had 5% fake followers. So, you can get fake followers without having to buy them.You can also find out more about your followers, or somebody else’s follower using SocialBakers’ FakeFollowers (they had me at 6% fake, but 90% active) – again you have to sign in with your Twitter account. But, as Chereen Zaki posting on Forbes pointed out, back in March, buying followers could cost you your job!

Jan 042014

The worlds of academic and commercial research are being riven at the moment with concerns and accusation about how poor much of the research and conclusions that have been published are. This particular problem is not specifically about market research, it covers health research, machine learning, bio-chemistry, neuroscience, and much more. The problem relates to the way that tests are being created and interpreted. One of the key people highlighting the concerns about this problem is John Ioannidis from Stanford University and his work has been reported both in academic and popular forums (for example The Economist). The quote “most published research findings are probably false.” comes from Ioannidis.

Key Quotes
Here are some of the quotes and worries floating about at the moment:

  • America’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) – researchers would find it hard to reproduce at least three-quarters of all published biomedical findings
  • Sandy Pentland, a computer scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – three-quarters of published scientific papers in the field of machine learning are bunk because of this “overfitting”
  • John Bohannon, a biologist at Harvard, submitted an error stewm paper on a cancer drug derived from lichen to 350 journals (as an experiment), 157 accepted it for publication

Key Problems
Key problems that Ioannidis has highlighted, and which relate to market research are:

1. Studies that show an unhelpful result are often not published, partly because they are seen as uninteresting. For example, if 100 teams look to see if they can find a way of improving a process and all test the same idea, we’d expect 5 of them to have results that are significant at the 95%, just by chance. The 95 tests that did not show significant results are not interesting, so they are less likely to be published. The 5 ‘significant’ results are likely to be published, and the researchers on that team are likely to be convinced that the results are valid and meaningful. However, these 5 results would not have been significant if all 100 had been considered together. This problem has been widely associated with problems in replicating results.

2. Another version of the multiple tests problem is when researchers gather a large amount of data then trawl it for differences. With a large enough data set (e.g. Big Data), you will always find things that look like patterns. Tests can only be run if the hypotheses are created BEFORE looking at the results.

3. Ioannidis has highlighted that researchers often base their study design on implicit knowledge, without necessarily intending to, and often without documenting it. This implicit process can push the results in one direction or another. For example, a researcher looking to show two methods produced the same results might be thinking about questions that are more likely to produce the same answers. Asking people to say if they are male or female is likely to produce the same result, across a wide range of question types and contexts. By contrast, questions about products that participants are less attached to, in the context of a 10 point-scale emotional associations are likely to be more variable, and therefore less likely to be consistent across different treatments.

4. Tests have a property called their statistical power, which in general terms is the ability of the test to avoid Type II errors (false negatives). The tests in use in neuroscience, biology, and market research typically have a much lower statistical power than the optimum. This led John Ioannidis in 2005 to assert that “most published research findings are probably false”.

Market Research?
What should market researchers make of these tests and their limitations? Test data is a basic component of evidence for market research. Researchers should seek to add any new evidence they can acquire to that which they already know, and where necessary do their own checking. In general, researcher should seek to find theoretical reasons for the phenomena they observe in testing – rather than relying on solely on test data.

However, let’s stop saying tests “prove” something works, and let’s stop quoting academic research as if it were “truth”. Things are more or less likely to be true, in market research and indeed most of science, there are few things that are definitely true.

The ‘science’ underpinning behavioural economics, neuroscience, and Big Data (to name just three) should be taken as work in progress, not ‘fact’.

Is Ioannidis Right?
If we are in the business of doubting academic research, then it behoves us to doubt the academic telling us to be more skeptical. There are people who are challenging the claims. For example this article from January 2013 claims that the real figure for bad biomedical research is ‘just’ 14%, rather than three-quarters.

Jan 012014

Ray Poynter, Navin Williams, and Sue York are writing a book on mobile market research, which will be published in August/September by Wiley, with the support of ESOMAR. The book has been provisionally titled, The Handbook of Mobile Market Research, and is a companion to The Handbook of Online and Social Media Research.

Are you or one of your colleagues, or your organisation, interested in helping us in any of the following ways?

  1. 1. Reviewing one or more chapters and letting us have your thoughts and suggestions?
  2. 2. Supplying case studies or Research on Research to help illustrate points in the book? Ideally, material that has already been published on your website, at a conference, or in articles.

We will, of course, fully cite and credit any help you and your organisation are able to offer.

Timelines are horrendous, of course! We’ve finished the first draft of the book and sent it to the publisher. This draft is very rough, if you have a look at any of the chapters you will spot errors and notes to ourselves in the text. The final text is being sent to the publisher 31st January, so we’d need any feedback or help before then.

So, if you are able to help, please email ray.poynter@thefutureplace.com and tell me which draft chapters you’d like us to send you. You are welcome to ask for as many or as few as possible. In doing so you are of course agreeing to not make these draft chapters widely available, as they are the copyright of Wiley, the publisher.

The chapters are: (the titles will change a bit)