Aug 172014

Beacons are devices that send a signal to people’s mobile phones, which identifies when somebody is close to a specific beacon, which in turn allows locations (e.g. a Starbucks) to know that somebody is in their store, which allows a range of marketing and market research options to be enabled. Beacons are the key that unlocks location-based research, which is one of the key requirements of ‘in the moment’ research. OK, there is a lot of jargon in that sentence, so let’s unpick it.

In the moment research. Traditional research was based on asking respondents to remember what they had seen and done. This was not too much of a challenge with really big things, like how many cars or refrigerators did you buy this month, and if you bought one, what brand was it and roughly how much did you pay. But if you want to know where somebody bought their bottled water, how they felt about the way they were served by a barista, or how their commute into work today went, the interactions need to be investigated during the activity, or immediately afterwards. This sort of research is called in the moment research. Location-based research. This means that the location triggers the research. For example, somebody visits a supermarket and the supermarket research activity is triggered. Later they visit a station and a travel related activity is triggered.

Beacons and iBeacons. The first beacons that were used for location-based activities were based on sound. The beacons were fitted in locations, such as a store, and emitted a very high frequency signature. The sound was too high pitched for humans to hear it, but mobile devices running the appropriate app could detect it. The beacon was in a location such as a store, when a participating respondent entered the store the beacon, the store, the company running the service, and the participant’s phone all know the participant is in the store. Which means the location can be recorded and an action initiated.

Sonic beacons have been superseded by beacons using Bluetooth LE (the LE stands for low energy), with the key example being Apple’s iBeacon. Although iBeacon is an Apple device it can work with iPhones and Android devices.

ShopKick. The most high profile user of beacons is not a market research company, but a marketing company, ShopKick. ShopKick persuade people to sign up to their system so they can earn awards for visiting participating sites. ShopKick can then use their system to send messages, coupons, request for actions etc.

The near future? Beacons are unlocking location-based research and in the moment research, which is going to increase the reach, sensitivity, and validity of market research.

What’s Hot in Research? Beacons are one example of something that is hot in market research. To find out more about what is hot, check out this post on the NewMR website.


Aug 132014
Sue Cardwell 2

Guest post by Sue Cardwell, marketing manager at Infotools Sue is a keen proponent of effective data visualization for business success. Sue has 10 years of experience in the consumer insight field across several countries. She now lives in Auckland, New Zealand and works for Infotools. Sue is an inveterate blogger and self-confessed chart geek who loves creating new vizzes in her spare time. You can see more by Sue Cardwell here.

Click here to see a list of the other posts in this series. If you would like to contribute a post to this series contact

“Do you want to allow this app to post to Facebook?”

No, I did not! I felt each new socially-connected service was an invasion of my private life. I was a classic lurker: someone who watches what other people post on social, but is shy about sharing.

But I’m also a marketer. We get excited about the shiny new toys of social media. Gradually I found my barriers being broken down in favour of the benefits I gained.

Time for a major attitude shift. As I gained confidence with social sharing, I made the decision to embrace transparency. I am who I am, and I’m happy for you to see that. If you wished, you could find out that I’m a data viz fan who loves hiking and cooks a mean pizza. I made and still make plenty of mistakes (over-sharing, anyone?). But being authentic means making mistakes sometimes.

My activity got me noticed. People recognised me when they saw me at market research events, and strangers were happy to talk to me. (I found out later that what was happening is called the Mere Exposure Effect. People like and trust something more when they are exposed to it more times.) I had more meaningful conversations and I felt more connected to my market research community.

Later I became the marketing manager of Infotools, a company that makes brilliant market research analysis and visualization tools. I was keen to spread my positive experience of social sharing with people there. It’s especially great for Infotools because we’re head-quartered in New Zealand so it’s not always handy to catch up with our clients and peers at events in the 100 countries we deal with. Social media erases borders and time zones.

But not everyone was as keen as I was to be visible on social media! Often, my enthusiasm met with resistance, fear and scepticism.

My theory on this is that market research attracts analytical minds. As researchers, we’re cautious observers, who love to explore lots of information before acting – if we ever get around to acting. Compared to say the advertising industry, we aren’t natural soapbox shouters.

However, we do love a good debate. We adore analysing research techniques and approaches to find the best solutions for delivering insight and business results. LinkedIn and Twitter are ideal places to do just that. Social conversations advance our industry by exchanging and developing ideas, and also by building community and culture.

So I challenge market researchers: feel the fear and do it anyway! You have everything to gain.


Aug 122014
Maya Middlemiss 2014

Guest post by Maya Middlemiss, Managing Director of Saros Research, a UK-based company specialising in market research recruitment.

Click here to see a list of the other posts in this series. If you would like to contribute a post to this series contact

This post focuses on what social media means to Saros Research. Research participant recruitment is all about connecting with people, reaching out to potential new audiences – and the social media revolution of recent years has given us an amazing array of new tools with which to do this. Our social media and content creation strategy is at the heart of our database development process, alongside a range of powerful offline tools which will always be needed as well.

We create and curate extensive content to introduce the idea of research participation to people, and encourage them to register as potential participants – via our own blog and also guest blogging (such as a resident slot at Birds-on-the-Blog). Having pioneered database-driven recruitment in the UK since the turn of the millennium we are aware that there is still a vast potential audience out there who simply don’t know they can get paid to share their views in qualitative research – and we are continually on the look-out for ways to engage with them. Our analytics help us decide where to put our efforts, to reach out to different audiences, based on the demand coming from our research clients.

We use our Facebook Page to disseminate our content, and also to place teasers for projects we want people to apply for – as well as to recruit to our database. As our main B2C channel, we find it a good way to get feedback from members and participants as well.

Similarly with Twitter, where we also curate a range of industry and related news several times a day. Twitter is becoming an increasingly important client and participant communications channel for us, and a good way to get urgent shouts-out rapidly to a wide audience. Twitter is also a great monitoring and listening tool, to find out relevant conversations are going on which we can engage with appropriately.

We use LinkedIn to build authority, distribute our own and others’ industry and business-related content, and to engage in relevant groups. We are still evaluating the impact of the new LinkedIn publishing platform, which seems to function so far as a useful B2B guest-blogging tool… But, one we are using without losing sight of the importance of owning one’s own content: anything you publish on someone else’s site costs you in overall control and traffic.

Anything else? Well are Pinning of course –isn’t everybody? It’s not going to big for us I don’t think. And our Youtube channel is important, for sharing user feedback as well as illustrating exactly what we do, not least because of it’s close connection to Google+.

Of course, participant recruitment is a specific niche within market research where it remains vital to be continually communicating with public audiences. It is resource-intensive to do it the way we do, but makes sense for database-driven recruitment. It might make less sense for other research companies, or those operating in different niches – it helps that I have a personal passion for social media, and write and blog and consult on it anyway…

As with any marketing activity, you need to know what your intention is, and how you will measure whether you have been successful with it, before you can decide what exactly to do. This direction needs to take place at a strategic level, even if the execution happens at a junior one – and I believe this is where many organisations slip up. Perhaps it’s simply down to not having anyone senior enough to create and implement the social media strategy, but a lot of quite large companies seem to bolt-on social media as an afterthought or leave it in the wrong hands, then wonder why it hasn’t worked out for them.

Things change very rapidly in the social media world, there are a great many shiny things to go chasing after, and measuring ROI can be challenging. Even identifying what to measure is difficult, it’s easy to get distracted by vanity metrics – so many people like and follow us! But how does that impact the bottom line? You can waste a great deal of time on the wrong things if you don’t identify your objectives very clearly at the outset. Also if you screw up you will do so very publicly – as many brands have learned to their cost.

For most of the research companies we recruit for, use of social media will tend to be driven by different factors to our own – prioritising authority building over reach, for example. And managing what we do remains part of a process under continual review, we can never assume we’ve finally got it nailed because the landscape keeps changing.

But we love social media here at Saros and will continue to use it for all the right reasons.


Jul 252014
The customer relationship

Most companies claim to be customer centric, but when you look at what they do you will see that the customer is all too often treated as a cross between an outsider and an enemy – someone to be persuaded, entrapped, or smooched, not somebody in true partnership with the brand or organisation.

I think there are two reasons why so many brands talk about being close to customer while at the same time failing to achieve it:

  • They don’t realise that doing it right can make the business more profitable and more sustainable – so they just talk-the-talk.
  • They don’t know how to operationalise a relationship with tens of millions of customers – so they don’t try.

I think both of these positions are wrong and I have set out my observations and findings about how some companies are truly putting the customer into the decision making process in a new (short) book. In the book I highlight cases and show the tools they are using and the rewards they are achieving.

The four main points I make are:

  1. 1. Customer engagement comes in three layers, Listening, Crowdsourcing, and Co-creation – and the best companies do all three, using a variety of tools and approaches. Companies as diverse as Molson Coors, Kimberley-Clarke, SingTel, and Avianca are all using multiple strategies to sit side-by-side with customers.
  2. 2. Research from the likes of IBM, Aberdeen, and Forrester show that customer involvement can increase revenue and profits.
  3. 3. With the rise of the collaborative economy, for example Uber, AirBNB, and Kickstarter brands cannot sit above the fray, they need to be part of the answer or they will be part of the problem.
  4. 4. In the past brands and companies had product differences, but in most cases these have been eroded. The final competitive advantage for a company lies with its customers – not with the product or the service, but with what customers can help create and sustain. However, the overarching message from all these cases and examples is that brands have to mean it, they can’t just talk about involving customers, they have to believe in it and they have to make it happen.

If you’d like to read the full book you can download it from the Vision Critical website (in exchange for handing over a few details about who you are).

Jul 062014

I am teaching a series of market research lessons in Tokyo at the moment (based on the ESOMAR book Answers to Contemporary Market Research Questions). At the first lesson one of the questions from the audience (who were all people with Japanese as their first language) was about the difference between Market Research and Marketing Research. I explained (and Tweeted) that there is no useful or meaningful difference between the two terms – which led to a few counter tweets. So, I thought I would set out my thoughts in more than 140 characters.

To most business people, to most market/marketing researchers, to most users of marketing/market research the two terms are interchangeable. Whilst most people seem to have a preference for one over the other, a writer/speaker cannot expect an audience to draw a distinction between the two.

There are some people who assert that there is a difference between the two words. However, these people tend to disagree with each other. For example a Qualtrics blog post in June 2010 asserts that Market Research is a subset of Marketing Research. Conversely Wikipedia says of Market Research (in the entry on Marketing Research) “Market research is broader in scope and examines all aspects of a business environment. It asks questions about competitors, market structure, government regulations, economic trends, technological advances, and numerous other factors that make up the business environment.”

The definitive description of Market Research, for international purposes, is probably the one offered by the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce)/ESOMAR Code on Market and Social Research. The Code says “Market research, which includes social and opinion research, is the systematic gathering and interpretation of information about individuals or organisations using the statistical and analytical methods and techniques of the applied sciences to gain insight or support decision making.”

My personal preference is for Market Research, but that is perhaps not surprising as I am from the UK, and in the UK almost everybody says Market Research (as supported by entering the two terms into Google Trends and restricting the search to UK). The terms Marketing Research is more common in the USA, but even there Google Trends would suggest more than twice as many people are looking “Market Research” and “Marketing Research”.

I could try making the semantic argument that Market Research relates to every aspect of the market, whilst Marketing Research only relates to that sub-set of markets that pertain to marketing. However, that would be folly.

Most articles that look at the two terms say they are used by most people interchangeably. If you want to confirm this get hold of a few introductory text books on market research and marketing research and inspect the contents – they overlap entirely.

If two terms are used interchangeably, and, if those people who believe the words are distinct ascribe very different meanings to the words, then there is no useful difference between the words. Speakers and writers do not own the meaning of words; meaning is determined by the people who read and hear the words.

I suspect that those people who argue that there is a difference between Market Research and Marketing Research are saying:

  • There used to be a difference.
  • And/or they would like there to be a difference.

PS, in this post I have used caps for Market Research and Marketing Research as I am drawing attention to the two terms and wanted to highlight them. Please, normally, do not use caps for market research, it is not a proper noun.


Jun 282014

This week’s Economist has an interesting article about the founders of Napster (Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker) and the difficulty they have had in coming up with a successful second presence in the market. Towards the end of the article the Economist refers to one of my favourite terms in the area of new business, “First-mover disadvantage”.

First-mover advantage?
Whenever I meet start-ups, or people back from the latest hi-tech innovation fest, the talk is often about first-mover advantage. The idea is that a company gets in first and secures a long-term advantage. However, although there are examples of first-mover advantage (e.g. when a first mover can tie-up the market for scarce materials), it is much more common to see first-mover disadvantages.

First-mover disadvantage
Examples of first-mover disadvantage go back at least as far as the printing press, noting that in the 16 Century Gutenberg died bankrupt). The economist article quotes Motorola and the mobile phone along with Netscape and the browser. To this list we could add:

  • Alta Vista had first mover status in search engines, but was overtaken by Yahoo! and then Google.
  • When personal computers first appeared the early advantage was with companies like Commordore, then Apple, then IBM, and now the PC is largely a commodity item, with a range of manufacturers, and most of the early leaders no longer in the market (Apple is still making personal computers, but has a relatively small market share).
  • Henry Ford appeared to have secured a first-mover advantage in 1908 with the Model T, but was overtaken in the 1920s by Chevrolet.

The awareness of first-mover disadvantage dates back a long way, for example here is a Forces article on it in 2007. In 2001 the Harvard Business Review reported a study that found that first movers in consumer goods and industrial goods tended to have a 4% LOWER ROI than later entrants to the market.

There are numerous causes of first-mover disadvantage, most of which relate to second mover advantage. The second mover can see what is working, they can aim to meet the unmet needs of the incumbent (which often means cost, but can mean efficacy, range, style etc).

Another source of first-mover disadvantage is that if a first mover is making money from its current model it often neglects the need to change, to disrupt itself, leaving it open to be disrupted by others.

So the next time somebody is pitching a product, investment, or job opportunity, watch out for that use of first-mover advantage.

When somebody is talking about first-mover advantages. It can be a good idea to check whether it represents and in-and-out opportunity. An in-and-out opportunity is where there is a short-term first mover advantage, and there is an understanding by the people running it that the optimum strategy is to ramp it up quickly, generate revenues, and then get out.

Other Examples?
What are your examples of first-mover disadvantage?


Jun 252014

Lots of people seem to have a big down on jargon, but is that fair or useful? In Research-Live, Lucy Hoang of Northstar asks whether jargon is a necessary evil? In her post, Lucy pointed out some of the downsides, highlighted the uses of jargon, and shared some good points about helping newcomers get to grips with key terms, for example the use of COB for close of business.

Some of the comments on her post reiterated the view that all jargon was bad. However, I think some jargon is both necessary and indeed helpful.

In terms of definitions my starting point is the Oxford English Dictionary (the OED to its fans) which defined jargon as “words or expressions used by a particular profession or group that are difficult for others to understand.” Jargon is also of relevance to sociolinguistics where it is one of the terms that can indicate a speech community, where the use of language is different from the wider community, but facilitates communication within the group, where the group can be as broad as a profession, or as narrow as a family or group or friends.

Facilitating communication
The starting point for any aspect of communication is whether it aids the message recipient receiving/understanding the message the speaker/writer is attempting to convey. This means the speaker/writer must choose words that ‘work’ for the purpose of the message and which ‘work’ for the audience. Any use of jargon needs to be based on a reliable assumption that the recipient is going to understand it.

Bad Jargon
I do not think all jargon is good, indeed it might be the case that the majority of jargon is not good. When I talk about jargon that is bad I mean anything that confuses the audience or distracts the audience or reduces the ability of the message to be communicated.

Examples of bad jargon include:

  1. Language which is now out of date. For example, I sometimes see notes that ask the recipient to revert, or where the recipient of my message promises to revert. Revert used to be a common way of saying ‘reply’ or ‘respond’ – however, in the UK/USA/Australia few people under 50 are familiar with this term. Many Latin terms fall into this out of date category, at least in the worlds of marketing and insight, for example inter alia, amongst other things, is no longer readily and widely understood.
  2. Jargon from other professions. If you are talking to market researchers and marketers, then jargon from other fields should be avoided, or explained. For example the Big Data acronym ETL is likely to confuse, even if spelled out as Extract-Transform-Load it is likely to confuse. In these cases if ETL is important (and in these days of big data it is of growing relevance) then it needs to be explained.
  3. Jargon that is used to make the speaker appear smart or trendy, as opposed to helping communicate the message. For me, two recent examples are “Swim lane” (a specific responsibility within the business) or “Tiger teams” (a team of specialists, often technical IT specialists).
  4. Jargon that reinforces discrimination or bad taste. Many people feel that sporting analogies tend to be discriminatory in the sense that they are much more familiar to men than women, and represent an ‘in group’ (i.e. men) and an ‘out group’ (i.e. women). Dinking the Kool-aid (i.e., unquestioningly following the company line) is a fairly tasteless reference to the Jonestown Massacre. And, “opening the kimono” seems to me both sexist (otherwise why not open the yukata – worn by men and women) and somewhat creepy!

Good Jargon
Good jargon includes things that:

  1. Make the meaning clearer
  2. Reduce the effort required of the reader
  3. Place the emphasis of the message in the right place.
  4. Make the communication more engaging.

Making the meaning clearer
When talking about survey questions to people who know about survey questions the jargon term “Grids” is much clearer than a plain English description. The jargon term random probability sample, is usually much more precise than a paragraph explaining what it is. The term verbatims is rejected by Microsoft Word, because it is a truncated form of something like “verbatim responses” or “verbatim comments”, but it is very clear and very precise, amongst users of research – it means the comments from research participants, collected as part of a research process.

Reducing the cognitive load
Hey, cognitive load is certainly jargon. I could have changed my headline to say “Reducing the effort required by the reader to understand the message by recognising that recent developments in neuroscience have indicated that analytical thinking processes require considerable effort and that the brain typically tries to reduce work, which can result in the brain ignoring elements of the message or of jumping to conclusions.” But, I would argue my heading is better for the people I am expecting to read this post.

Referring to CATI instead of spelling it out (or instead of a plain English description) reduces the reader’s cognitive load. RDD (Random Digit Dial) is an even better example, when you are sure the reader is familiar with the term. So, I would write RDD in a paper for sampling geeks, I would write random digit dialling if writing for a wider research audience, and outside of research I would probably not refer to this degree of detail.

Putting the emphasis in the right place
The fairly new term C-suite refers collectively to people like CEOs, COOs, CFOs (Chief Executive Officer – i.e. the boss, Chief Operations Officer – often the person running the bits of the company that make it work, and Chief Financial Officer – the person running the financial side of the business, in particular the accounts). If the reader can reliably be assumed to know the term C-suite, then a sentence can be written about the need to communicate with the C-suite without the sentence having to focus on the detail of who, which is important when the focus should be on the message.

One of the key elements in communication is where the emphasis is. Jargon allows the writer/speaker to focus on the message, rather than giving equal weight to every part of the message, when the jargon is understood by the recipient.

Making the communication more engaging
Plain English definitely has its role. But nobody would have watched Shakespeare’s plays if he had used plain English, nobody would have read Hemmingway if he had used plain English, and nobody would listen to the messages of people like Seth Godin, Tom Peters, and Daniel Kahneman if they had used plain English. Busy people, people in marketing and insight professionals expect messages to be engaging, they want storytelling, they want creative use of images and language. These things tend to require jargon, metaphors, analogies, and idiom. Plain English runs the risk of not being listened to.

Some disparaged examples
Forbes is running a poll about jargon, seeking to identify the most annoying examples. So, here is my defence of some of their contenders:

  • Take offline: This means to stop discussing a topic in a group situation so that it can be covered later, perhaps in a one-to-one discussion, rather than in a group. Why do I like it? Because it allows a problem to be diffused politely and easily. It is great when two people in a meeting disagree and the rest of the room do not wish to be involved until the two people in dispute have come to a single view.
  • Full service: In marketing and market research this term is becoming increasingly useful as there are a growing number of companies who are not full service, choosing focus on one service, one media, or one method.
  • Ecosystem: This is a relatively new term in the marketing and insight world. It means looking at how things work in total, rather than looking at just one aspect. The mobile ecosystem, for example, refers to telephone service providers, handset manufacturers, users of phones, mobile advertisers, app producers etc. The reason to use the term ecosystem is to encourage the listener/reader to embrace the whole picture, not just the bit they have historically looked at.
  • Scalable. A scalable business or method is one that can be increased in size without a major problem. A good example of a business that is not scalable is face-to-face qualitative research. To double the size of the business requires twice as many people, and the people are hard to find. A good example of a scalable business is one that depends on technology, in which case a doubling of the sales might require very few extra people. When assessing new businesses or opportunities one of the key issues is whether the option is scalable.
  • Bleeding edge: The bleeding edge is when a development is so full of new developments that it is going to create stresses and problems because of its newness. For example, people who use Google Glass at the moment are going to meet challenges from legislators, shop owners, the general public, and from technology. The benefit of the term Bleeding edge is not only that it describes a phenomenon succinctly, but it also embodies a warning. For most people the bleeding edge is not a good place.

The key issue, as Lucy makes clear in her post, is making sure that the writer takes the reader into account. One of the great bits of advice in Lucy’s post is that we need to help newcomers to our industry learn the key terms and we should avoid stigmatising people who have not heard of: COB, CFO, IPO, CTR, or TLA.

ps the acronym TLA is a joke, it refers to Three Letter Acronyms


Jun 222014

We like to think of ourselves as rational creatures and we like to think we can trust our ears. However, watch the video below and be ready to change your mind.

The Mckurk effect , the understanding of which dates back to 1976, shows how hearing and vision interact with each other. One of the interesting things about this effect is that even once you are aware of it you still experience it.

From a marketing and market research point of view key messages are:

  1. Changing the sound can change the perception, which means that the real sound should be tested as part of the research.
  2. More generally, the behavioural sciences, such as behavioural economics and neuromarketing are changing the our understanding of how marketing works and how it should be evaluated.
  3. Perception is not reality, which in terms of persuasion means that reality is not always relevant.
  4. People exposed to this sort of effect may be tricked, but if they are they are likely to be angry once they are aware – so include checking to post purchase remorse as part of the research.

Can you suggest other similar effects that help remind marketers and market researchers that they can’t trust their model of the rational consumer.


Jun 132014
Steve Wills

On July 16 Steve Wills will be giving a NewMR lecture on Insight Management and various initiatives to make it a recognised professions – click here to find out more about the lecture.

One of those initiatives is the creation of a MSc Insight Management degree by the University of Winchester, in the UK (to the South-West of London). Below you can read more about the course.


MSc Insight Management

The University of Winchester’s MSc Insight Management is designed for working managers, delivered on a part-time weekend basis. It will appeal to managers from diverse business support organisations such as market research, data analytics and competitor and market intelligence. The degree will give students an understanding of the Insight Management function and equips them with key skills in insight generation and delivery for business decision-making.

The degree develops students’ ability to critically evaluate the information needs of an organisation and the potential value it can generate. It explores ways in which organisations make sense of the information they generate, examining consumer decision and business decision processes. It examines the barriers to getting that information used when decision makers are swamped in diverse and often conflicting data and reviews approaches to generating insight through creative thinking techniques, within both divergent and convergent processes.

Being able to convey and articulate the meaning of insight at all levels from the Board through to those working at the sharp end of organisations forms a major part the degree.

You can find out more about the course from the Winchester University website.

Winchester Business School is a signatory to United Nations Principles of Responsible Management Education and the programme has been designed to fit within this framework.

May 172014

Next month I will be in Atlanta as one of the co-chairs of IIeX USA. If you can attend one of the IIeX events (in Europe, North America, Latin America, and the Southern Hemisphere) I strongly recommend it.

Business is changing, society is changing, and consequently research is changing. If you hope to be enjoying work in five years then you need to have a plan for how you are going to stay relevant to clients and customers.

Why IIeX?
Most conferences and events have their purpose, AAPOR explore the methodological boundaries, MRMW advance the cause of mobile market research, the trade bodies provide coherence and shared learning for the members of the industry. IIeX has a very different purpose, in my opinion. IIeX represents the contested future, a set of different visions pitched in dialogical conflict. IIeX is not curated to find the best, or the most likely, or the most thought through. IIeX presents the superposition of differing waves of innovation, investment, and imagination.

To give you a taste of what I mean, here are some of the highlights you can see in Atlanta (June 16 to 18)

  • Clients agitating for change: Sion Agami from P&G, Ryan Backer from General Mills, Eileen Campbell from IMAX, Roberto Cymrot from Coca-Cola, Claudia Del Lucchese from Mondelez, and Laura Flessner from Pfizer.
  • Big thinkers and heavy hitters: Simon Chadwick, Melanie Courtright, David Bakken, Fiona Blades, and Mark Earls author of Herd.
  • Innovative suppliers: Steve August from Revelation, Stephen Phillips from ZappiStore, Tim Bock from Numbers, Siobhan Dullea from Communispace, Andrew Reid from Vision Critical, and Carol Fitzgerald from BuzzBack.
  • Alternatives: Me, Elina Halonen, Tom Anderson, Adriana Rocha, and, of, course, Lenny Murphy

But this is just a small representation of the many, many speakers, workshop leaders, and exhibitors. Hear why brands like Dell, Deloitte, Lowe’s Home Improvement, Groupon, Campbell Soup, The Weather Channel, AOL, Bloomberg, and Philips Consumer Lifestyle are asking for change, and understand their perspective of the future.

Don’t come to Atlanta expecting answers. Come to Atlanta to find out what the questions are and come to Atlanta to start making the connections that will engage you in the future of market research.

My presentation is on New Skills for a New Era, addressing the need to change. My workshop will use gamification approaches to explore futuring techniques. You can find out more at and if you use the code NMR20 you will get a 20% discount.