Globalization is not a new phenomenon but its dramatic acceleration is. In fact, during the downturn, many companies have turned to international markets as a feasible approach to expand, increase profits and divide risks. However, at times instead of profits many companies face deep losses, cultural disconnect and even consumer hostility. So, why is it that successful large multi-national companies seem to get their global strategy wrong?

It seems the question most companies forget to ask themselves is — are we suitably equipped to meet the needs of the global consumer? Today, companies are challenged by consumers at their own game. As consumers are exposed to global trends and advances in technology, their demands and expectations from companies (local and international) are increasing — they want companies to do away with the “one size fits all” approach and build products that serve their needs.

While companies must be responsive to local needs, for successful global expansion and local penetration establishing a dedicated research team at every point of presence is not a viable option for companies.

MREB’s research shows that leading companies are establishing processes to leverage learnings and resources to benefit from research units spread across countries. In fact, by collaborating efforts, global research teams provide unparalleled research support and boost company competitiveness through cost management and knowledge sharing.

Learn more in MREB’s study Supporting Global Business Needs on how leading global companies optimize their Research teams globally to support their growing business needs by:

1. Proactively share research insights and best practices to avoid research duplication.
2. Strategically align researchers to geographic markets based on business need—not researcher location.
3. Equipping regional business units to handle certain aspects of research independently.

My colleague at the Marketing Leadership Council Patrick Spenner recently wrote on Forbes.com warning CMOs about the big data hype: In MLC’s recent survey of CMOs across the globe, Big Data ranked as one of the top 3 issues on their minds. 

And our own study revealed that 60% of business partners feel that they do NOT have the support and tools needed to be customer focused.  And yet this is just the support decision makers need more than ever as they wrestle with the prospect of Big Data.  Indeed, the MLC work found that close to two-thirds of the marketing team is likely to experience “analysis-paralysis” in the face of the data deluge.

We found that research’s role is changing as information proliferates, and that functions are now evolving from insight consultants to knowledge inculcators.  This means that researchers must work harder than ever to ensure business partners are using insights to inform their decisions.

We recently asked leading organizations how to drive business partner engagement with knowledge, and they tackle the problem with two strategies:

1. Use existing information flows-partner with the Communications team and business partners themselves to make sure that your insights will resonate throughout the organization
2. Correct overconfidence and misperceptions-tap business partners’ emotions to create internal dissonance that demonstrates the value of new information

These two strategies will make information more memorable, ensuring that your insights (from Big Data or not) will truly become Big Insights that impact your company’s actions. 

MREB members, log on to see how companies like GM, Intuit, Heinz, and Telecom NZ drive engagement with knowledge.

Sales expert Tom Searcy recently outlined four tips to ensure recipients read and act upon your email on cbsnews.com:

1. Declare action requests up front
2. Use email for transactions: if you need to write out context and details draft a letter and attach it to the email
3. Write the email assuming your mom will read it at a press conference
4. Read every email twice before you hit send

I definitely follow the press conference test and the re-read imperative, but those of you who have received emails from me know that his steps 1 and 2 are not necessarily a strong-suit for me.  I just cannot imagine typing “Action Requests” after my salutation and listing to-do’s like Tom advises. 

Should I (and others) be treating emails as transactional correspondence, with an ultimate goal of getting the entire message into the subject line, as Tom recommends?  It seems so curt to me…but perhaps it helps folks see what needs to be seen, learn what needs to be learned, and take action in the right direction?

I’d love to hear what you think…should we be striving for such directness in our daily emails?  Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

MREB members, for perspective on effective communication, not limited to email guidelines, check out our Communication and Consultation resources and our brand new center on Driving Engagement with Knowledge.

 By Aaron Field

Saturday Night Live really gets market research. Why else would they invent Einstein Express? “When it absolutely, positively, has to be there the day before yesterday.”

It is absolutely true that executives should think ahead of time so we can do quality research. It is also absolutely true that they do not. In fact the problem is even worse. Strategic decisions are much more likely to be urgent.

Worrying stat of the day: Important = Urgent

17% of relatively unimportant decisions are considered highly urgent. But a whopping 55% of important decisions are highly urgent in the eyes of executives.

So we need to be fast or strategic decisions will slip past. Two ways Research is beginning to cope:

Use existing information to quickly answer urgent requests. Motorola Mobility uses quick-fire teams to draw together existing information. How fast is it? They deliver fact-based information in as little as 24 – 48 hours.  Here is a really telling result. They’ve seen a dramatic increase in the number of strategic requests. Because executives have the new confidence that Research runs at the pace of business.

Doing fast research: In the ideal world I would have a well-balanced, representative sample for all research. But pulse surveys, expert networks, and MROC’s are custom-made for directional information without the wait. And it’s not like executives aren’t doing it already. DIY research (aptly named SurveyMonkey) or even worse – chatting with random customers.

The classic research project is both more precise and reliable – in short more right. But today the absent of right isn’t wrong – it is irrelevance. It makes me very uncomfortable as a researcher but fast is as important as right. The most impactful research departments are learning to be a little bit of both.

MREB members, learn more about Motorola Mobility’s Quick-Fire teams here.

This week’s guest blog comes from Ian Lewis, Director, Research Impact Consulting at Cambiar.  Ian was an MREB member when he led the Consumer Research & Insights team at Time Inc.

The 2011 Cambiar Future of Research Study looked ahead to 2020 — tapping the perspectives of both corporate researchers and senior supplier executives.  It was presented at the Annual CASRO Conference October 2011.

Are we facing transformation?

Six in ten of corporate research leaders expect major transformation of the industry by 2020, with this being evident by 2015.  Corporate researchers believe that the leading supplier in 2020 is just as likely to be Google, Facebook or a company from outside the industry as it is to be one of the “old guard”!  

Fast forward to 2020 – what does it look like? Read More »

From à la mode To à la carte

Burgundy is apparently the new black this season. Or, as the luxury brand Salvatore Ferragamo calls it, “ox blood”, a less romantic shade but equally pricey. While the priests of high fashion tend to set the agenda, in research it’s the other way around with business partners dictating what is à la mode every season/quarter. Not infrequently, by the time market research scrambled to get a piece of research done as ordered, business partners’ interest has already shifted somewhere else.

Market research is certainly not blind to this constant lag in relevance and subsequent lack of influence.  Our survey of market researchers this year shows they are keenly aware of the gap between how many people in each function could benefit from MR’s insight and how many actually do. Without going into details in the graph below, let me direct your attention to one data point: MR estimates that 89% of sales people could benefit from MR’s insight yet is currently only able to influence 49%. This means 40 reps in 100 are deprived of some valuable MR information which could potentially help them cross-sell, up-sell or build better customer relationships, think of that in terms of lost revenue.

Our most progressive members bridge these knowledge gaps by following an “à la carte” approach instead – building a menu of foundational knowledge topics aimed at providing smart answers to non-strategic requests while deploying its best people to tackle strategic ad hoc items. The process of constructing such a platform could be simpler than you think:

• Select topics for long term, cross-functional/ cross-geographical relevance. It’s worth spending time finding overarching themes and identifying drivers for future growth. Alticor does it through a “top down + bottom up” approach while GM decides on topics based on whether it’s slotted for “Comprehensive Learnings” or the one-page “Customer Pulse”.
• Let business partners choose how much they want to read. Alticor’s strategic reports runs about 15-25 pages, yet allows skimming by highlighting key points and graphics. Alpha Company’s Foundational Knowledge Platform is in the style of a wiki, which is both broad and deep, but consists of bite-sized nuggets of info which makes it easy to use.
• Piggyback on existing channels for insight distribution. Since most of the work was done in choosing, reorganizing and repositioning content, little investment is needed on the distribution side. Intranets and newsletters are voted the most popular distribution channels, but secured drives are another option if access needs to be restricted. 

For many years I looked to Bill Lumbergh as my “what not to say” as a manager tutor.  (I’m gonna need you to…)

But we now have an updated list of phrases that should never pass a manger’s lips thanks to workplace expert Liz Ryan.  She recently blogged the 10 things only bad managers say.  Among the most groan-inducing:

• I’ll take it under advisement
• Who gave you permission to do that?
• In these times, you’re lucky to have a job at all

Most of the quotes Liz lists seem to show an under-appreciation (to say the least) of what folks bring to the team and company.  And for Research departments statements like these not only make people feel terrible about their workplace, they also have a direct impact on the quality of recommendations created.

We’ve run the numbers, and we know that more insightful teams foster an environment that:

• Builds personal commitment to a clear insight mandate
• Reinforces the sharing of hypotheses and judgments, not just proven conclusions
• Leads staff to self-directed learning rather than prescribe staff activities
• Engineers opportunities to build career momentum despite limited department size and budget

MREB members, to see what your group can do to improve productivity across the board, check out our work on fostering an environment that unleashes researchers’ potential.   And if you’d like to measure the impact your department has on internal partners’ decisions, contact us about deploying the Business Impact Diagnostic.

We all know the importance of asking the right questions. (Sir Francis Bacon’s assessment that “a prudent question is one half of wisdom” was surely an underestimate.) So, how do you train your line partners to ask the types of great questions that lead to great research insights?

You need to teach them to imagine knowledge that doesn’t yet exist and to focus on these unknowns in the research-scoping process. In other words, encourage your business partners to start thinking about IWIKs. What is an IWIK? No, it’s not a misspelling of one of George Lucas’ furry creations. It stands for “I Wish I Knew,” and it’s a great way of making sure you’re asking the right research questions.  

Because better data and better synthesis are often inadequate for producing differentiated insights, line partners must focus their questions on key drivers of consumer behavior so that we as researchers can collect the right information capable of propelling significant business impact.

MREB Members, read about how Eli Lilly successfully used the IWIK process to educate their line and ensure that key unknowns were translated into questions with high potential for differentiation.

With the recession leading to businesses moving beyond the confines of the company headquarters, we see companies exploring new ways to retain and continue tapping into their pool of experts. A strategic decision gaining ground is to allow employees to work remotely. Increasingly, research teams too are moving from co-located (located in one office) teams to geographically dispersed teams.

Dispersed team structures can offer huge benefits — efficiency, cost savings, and the ability to choose team members with the best skills, regardless of their location. While this structure has its advantages, ask any manager (even the most experienced) and you’ll hear – “managing a dispersed research team presents huge challenges.” Think – distrust and lack of visibility, gap in knowledge-sharing and, the absence of a feeling of a “team”.

Despite tackling these challenges with tried-and-tested solutions which involve senior leadership support, increased managerial time and org-wide investments (e.g., technology and training), managers still struggle to get the manager-team member equation right in a dispersed set-up.

Why is it that companies fail in spite of their best efforts? MREB’s study on Managing Dispersed Research Teams shows that there are hidden “softer” pitfalls that are overlooked by most managers. The secret lies in knowing what signs to watch out for and working consistently to getting to the bottom of them.

Take a closer look at what effective managers of dispersed research teams do differently, and how they realign their management approach on three key areas:

1. Improve Employee Engagement
2. Provide Career Support
3. Foster Knowledge Sharing

In their upcoming book The Challenger Sale, our colleagues at the Sales Executive Council upend traditional sales wisdom.  Surveying over 6,000 sales reps across geographies and industries, they identified 5 rep profiles:

1. The Hard Worker
2. The Problem Solver
3. The Challenger
4. The Relationship Builder
5. The Lone Wolf

And they found that reps in only one of these profiles consistently outperforms the others—the Challenger.  Challengers use their deep understanding their customers’ business to push their thinking and control the sales conversation.  And how do they gain this deep understanding?  Cue Research!

In a recent HBR blog, my colleagues Matt Dixon and Brent Adamson outlined how reps at W.W, Grainger changed their sales approach, going from asking the customer what’s keeping them up at night to focusing on a series of proprietary insights that Grainger has developed about the customers that prompt them to think differently about how to manage spending.  All of the sudden, the sales reps are able to show customers what SHOULD be keeping them up at night (and how Grainger can help them solve the problem).

Research is a great partner to help embed insight into the sales process, and many of you may see an uptick in interest from your sales team once The Challenger Sale is released on November 10.  So, where to start? 

MREB members, check out our essay on A New Research-Sales Partnership to read how progressive research departments drive revenue performance.  Then see how Condé Nast’s research team designed a comprehensive program that delivers consistent and effective sales support.