Who among us has not, while listening to a stream of statistics based loosely on anything of interest to us, asked the inevitable question:
Who the heck figures out all this stuff?
Well, now the question has been answered.
Market researcher: Every day hard working men and women leave their homes with the singular goal of researching what people want and need. It is tedious, it is bland, it is repetitive. It is also absolutely essential to the success of any business. And in the news business, with newspapers suffering more losses with each passing day, it is absolutely essential to survival as well.
And why is market research so important? Because every business needs to know exactly what consumers want in order to give it to them.
Ignoring this fact is the single-worst thing newspapers have done to themselves.
But, luckily, realization is starting to come and more and more newspapers are taking steps to figure out what the future of news will look like...as decided by consumers, not editors.
A REAL-LIFE TASTE
As the future of news journalism ourselves, it was great to experience in real life what response research is like. The visit from the Los Angeles Times researchers made apparent the utter magnitude of work that is put into getting an accurate consumer response. The whole system banks on the willingness of hundreds (probably thousands) of people to take time out of their busy schedules to be surveyed on something they may care nothing about. The possibilities of failure are daunting.
WHAT I LIKED
That said, I thought it was very interesting to see what types of questions were asked and what sort of "tests" were given in order to get responses about certain things. The card game was especially interesting because I never would have thought of making the consumer step into the roll of editor in order to see how they would build a newspaper. It is a very clever way to see how people think about their news and what they feel is most important.
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE
I have never been a fan of fill-out surveys. Nobody likes to fill those out and so the answers are automatically going to be skewed negatively...not to mention that people have hundreds of biases that affect their answers. I thought the "test" of separating the different news sections was much more effective than having people scroll around a website and circle numbers.
Making someone concentrate and physically do something is much more effective than having them passively answer questions...and much less likely to be affected by biases. I know I put a lot less thought and effort into the card game and I can't be the only one who felt that way.
Also, there is a sort of emotion that comes with doing a study like this that makes the subjects feel used. Although I readily would have done a survey if someone had told me it would help the LA Times know how to give their audience what they want, the atmosphere changes when it is done secretly. I know it's necessary for more accurate results, but it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth...never a good thing when it comes to advertising.
A REAL-LIFE TASTE
As the future of news journalism ourselves, it was great to experience in real life what response research is like. The visit from the Los Angeles Times researchers made apparent the utter magnitude of work that is put into getting an accurate consumer response. The whole system banks on the willingness of hundreds (probably thousands) of people to take time out of their busy schedules to be surveyed on something they may care nothing about. The possibilities of failure are daunting.
WHAT I LIKED
That said, I thought it was very interesting to see what types of questions were asked and what sort of "tests" were given in order to get responses about certain things. The card game was especially interesting because I never would have thought of making the consumer step into the roll of editor in order to see how they would build a newspaper. It is a very clever way to see how people think about their news and what they feel is most important.
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE
I have never been a fan of fill-out surveys. Nobody likes to fill those out and so the answers are automatically going to be skewed negatively...not to mention that people have hundreds of biases that affect their answers. I thought the "test" of separating the different news sections was much more effective than having people scroll around a website and circle numbers.
Making someone concentrate and physically do something is much more effective than having them passively answer questions...and much less likely to be affected by biases. I know I put a lot less thought and effort into the card game and I can't be the only one who felt that way.
Also, there is a sort of emotion that comes with doing a study like this that makes the subjects feel used. Although I readily would have done a survey if someone had told me it would help the LA Times know how to give their audience what they want, the atmosphere changes when it is done secretly. I know it's necessary for more accurate results, but it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth...never a good thing when it comes to advertising.
No comments:
Post a Comment