Checon Pesquisa

Category: market research

  • How to hire a research firm?

    How to hire a research firm?

    There are several aspects to be analyzed when hiring a market research company. The starting point is to make it clear that no one (including the research companies themselves) is better acquainted with all facets of the problem than the contractor.

    Therefore, for the study to be successful, it is essential to share this knowledge and doubts with the future service provider, that is, conducting a survey involves details of confidential strategic plans, confidential ideas, fears or changes in the development of products & services. shared.

    In this way, the relationship needs to be based on the confidence that the identified points, whether flaws, weaknesses or opportunities, will only be used by those entitled to.

    Another aspect involved is that of competence. An important prerequisite is that the research company knows this market, having carried out work in the area, not needing to “learn” everything from scratch to start the analyzes.

    Finally, there is a commitment, since the team responsible for the study must be deeply involved with the matter in order to effectively achieve success in reaching the requested conclusions. The basic premise is that, if the questions were trivial, it would not even be necessary to contract the research.

    The 3 factors mentioned are conditions to be fulfilled and equally relevant to the success of the research project and the relationship between the parties.

    The commercial discussion of the project should only continue with the fulfillment of these requirements. However, as the evaluation of these points is not trivial, I allow myself to highlight some tips to guide this analysis:

    • What is the size of the research company in relation to the size of the work? If it is too large, there may be some failure in the commitment, since the study may be carried out by interns or professional-beginners. On the other hand, being too small, the lack may be of competence and experience in similar projects.

    • How are the research company’s facilities? Are there rooms, equipment, infrastructure, even if minimal, or is it just virtual, working in homes, in parallel to other activities or even only by cell phone?

    • Does the company focus on research, or does it simply “also do research”, in addition to marketing, communication, advertising, recruitment & selection, …?

    • Which company customers can give you a reference?

    • How long has the company been in business? Is it linked to any class entity in the research area such as ABEP, ABIPEME, SBPM, ESOMAR …?

    • In research work, what activities are carried out and which are outsourced? If there is outsourcing, are they in the core or middle activity? What is the control over researchers in the field, training, supervision, checking, typing and recruiting? Are these activities carried out in other host cities or by strangers such as telemarketers, computer service providers, etc.?

    • Who are the company’s employees and who will be responsible for the development of the project? What is the professional and academic training of these interlocutors, in whose hands your future, or investment decision is being placed?

    Finally, it is good to keep in mind the question of accumulated knowledge.

    The relationship with a research company should aim at the long term, and not be restricted to specific projects, such as advertising agencies, where you don’t contract (at least shouldn’t) just for the product launch or every new date commemorative!

    The relationship, in principle, should follow a logic and be guided by measurable goals, at longer lasting intervals.

    However, in research there are still frequent price measurements for carrying out works, considering this factor exclusively. Not that this is not important, quite the contrary, it just shouldn’t be the only criterion.

    With each survey, the target market can be better debugged, but not all information is always presented, either because they are not relevant at that moment to that specific hypothesis, or because they are secondary to the project under discussion, or even because of the short time for presentation and discussion of results.

    However, this unique and exclusive knowledge, still in the possession of the research company, is already the right of the contracting company and constitutes a differential for subsequent studies, practically at zero cost, and with a great multiplier effect!

    Trends and behavioral changes are now more clearly perceived, since experience already exists, even more so if the same research company has the opportunity to constantly deepen, with successive work, such knowledge!

    But such a situation will only become real as the relationship continues and the new projects bring the opportunity for the accumulated knowledge to be shared.

  • Is market research expensive? I must do?

    Is market research expensive? I must do?

    Should I do market research?

    Before answering whether companies should do market research, it is worth reflecting on the following Brazilian reality: more than 71% of new companies close over the first five years! On the other hand, the understanding of “expensive” may be that of:
    • Invest in equipment, raw material, packaging, hiring, records, lawyer, accountant, human resources and not having the expected return.
    • Apply equity or third parties’ funds after a few months “discover” that there is no market for the product!
    • Spend on design, decoration, rent, renovation, stock, advertising, marketing and only then come to the conclusion that the profile of the clientele that has access to the chosen point of sale is not that of compatible income to consume the services offered!

    The concept of “expensive” is, therefore, very subjective and could not be analyzed only in absolute values! All of these situations are examples that, in a large number of times, explain the high percentage of enterprises that are unable to survive or consolidate.

    But they also demonstrate how the research could guide the decision-making of entrepreneurs that involve risk.

    There is still no awareness that research is carried out to reduce business risks, to eliminate “guesswork” (I think it will work, I think it will sell, I think the consumer will want to buy, I think there is a market , I think it will be cool …) and to test hypotheses!

    The aspect to be considered in the question “is market research expensive?” It is always: what is the relationship between the cost of the necessary research vis-à-vis the amount you intend to invest? In other words, if the project in question requires a certain volume of resources, how much of this amount should be directed to research in order to reduce uncertainties?

    Nobody does a search just because it is interesting, chic or trendy!

    Market research exists and is developed to answer objective questions, clarify doubts that involve risks, provide guidance on strategies and positions, support decision making, in short to help companies grow, projects to be carried out and ideas turned into results!

    Serious research considers data collected from the past, monitors information from the present, and signals trends and directions for the future.

    However, to properly process this set of numbers and indicators, experience, accumulated knowledge and much, much study and analysis are required. But that would already be part of another theme, the subject of the next article, about the most appropriate criteria for choosing a research company.

  • Customer, how are you? How do I understand it?

    Customer, how are you? How do I understand it?

    Knowing the customer

    The basic requirement for the success of any enterprise is the knowledge and monitoring of your market and, more specifically, your customer’s expectations and needs

    To the desperation of businessmen, consumers, however, have become increasingly invisible to companies.

    This change is the result of a radical transformation that has been causing the power to migrate from organizations to customers.

    Current days

    Nowadays the customer has started to dictate the forms of relationship by which he wants to keep in touch with his suppliers, and almost always the most relevant criteria have considered comfort, convenience and agility!

    If in the past, to make a payment or withdraw an extract, it was necessary to go to the bank, today with the telephone and ATMs, physical presence at the branch itself is no longer necessary.

    To buy an appliance or a car, the trip to the store or dealership, which was previously essential, nowadays, with the Internet, has become almost expendable.

    Even the food or household supply of consumer products has undergone changes with the most frequent home deliveries both from restaurants and through apps (iFood, for example) and restaurants.

    Thus, direct contact between customer-seller or customer-manager of establishments is becoming less and less possible.

    In addition to being more sporadic, this link has also been changing and becoming impersonal, as it started to materialize much more through the telephone, instant messaging applications. social networks or emails than by your own voice or physical presence!

    Distance

    If this direct and personal relationship does not occur between the parties, it becomes much more complex for the executive or entrepreneur to monitor or identify the constant changes in his clientele.

    The distancing prevents one from understanding the profile changes, the surprising changes in habits and from becoming aware of the inevitable criticisms and the desired suggestions.

    In other words, despite meeting the demands of modern consumers, the distance between the parties has grown so much that it is no longer possible to know & foresee the behavior of the customer, even though he is present “at the counter”!

    If with him present, it was no longer an easy task, what can we say from a distance!

    In these times of globalization, with the increasing offer of products, services and channels, the consumer, naturally, prefers the one who understands him best and, due to this knowledge, has to offer what he really wants, under the conditions that please him. and in the time frame you need!

    Large companies, in order to solve such problems, have used sophisticated tools through computerization and the use of modern (and expensive) CRM / customer relationship management software.

    It is, however, only one of the possible ways to solve this difficulty and, even so, a solution aimed at large enterprises, due to the considerable investments required.

    Qualitative Research Techniques

    Another way much more accessible, and available to all, would be qualitative research, through different techniques that are able to present numerous solutions. Some examples of the techniques are:

    • Focus groups make it possible to apprehend countless personal sensations, impressions and assessments. Something that other techniques hardly offer, even in comparison with the most sophisticated ones.
    • In-depth interviews, on the other hand, help to understand the individual behavior of clients in relation to certain more complex issues.
    • The “hidden customers” simulate the situations of interaction between company & consumer, a technique that can signal any flaws for the necessary corrections.
    • There is also ethnography, the newest methodology that has been applied with great success in the field of qualitative research, based on the knowledge accumulated in anthropology, whose results are, in the same way, surprising.

    And the most important is that these are low cost alternatives, with high return and very high speed of response.

    Despite the sophisticated computer systems in use, even large companies periodically do not give up “listening” and “analyzing” what consumers think. Let them be your “customers”, “ex-customers”, “competition-customers” and even still “non-customers”.

    These studies make it possible for executives, entrepreneurs, planners and managers to be even more (or again) in direct contact with their audience. They rescue an “intimacy” that has been lost in these modern times and providing valuable knowledge for directing business towards success.

  • Like & Dislike in Advertising

    Like & Dislike in Advertising

    Likability, Advertising and Neuromarketing

    It has always seemed like a considerable exaggeration to expect advertising campaigns to make people fall in love with brands, products or services.

    Even with admired, inspiring companies like Apple, Coca-Cola, Google or Microsoft, or products like Nespresso or the iPhone, talking about consumers’ “love” for a brand or product may be a stretch.

    In my view, getting an advertisement to make someone simply “like” a brand, product or service is already a considerable challenge — even more so for categories like toilet paper, toothpaste, banks, insurance or cell phone plans.

    That’s why the “like and dislike” evaluation — likability — is a more realistic, plausible and logical way to think about how advertising wins over its target audience.

    Different studies address this in the advertising market, including some from the ARF (Advertising Research Foundation), which highlight the predictive potential of likability, while others are less conclusive, or even skeptical.

    How It’s Traditionally Measured

    Conventional research measures “like and dislike” mainly through two classic questions: “Did you like the ad you watched?” and “Would you like to watch it again?”

    It’s worth noting that, whether the approach is qualitative or quantitative, both of these likability findings rely on people’s stated, rationalized responses.

    Far from claiming that results from this format are invalid, the point worth discussing is how accurate or adequate this kind of evaluation really is for assessing an ad.

    One risk of this “traditional” criterion is that respondents’ answers can be skewed by social desirability bias — the tendency to give a “politically correct” answer. The format also doesn’t allow for a more refined metric, since it tends to polarize between two extremes (“like” and “dislike”), making it harder to pinpoint the adjustments needed or draw finer comparisons with competitors.

    What Neuromarketing Adds

    When we look at the alternatives for measuring that same “like and dislike” using neuromarketing tools, the options multiply considerably.

    It’s worth highlighting, first, the wide range of measurement techniques available — techniques fully capable of meeting these expectations, generally with stronger results.

    These range from facial expression analysis to skin conductance (galvanic skin response), pupil dilation, and EEG (electroencephalography), among others.

    Each technique delivers more precise results and, above all, is far more sensitive to participants’ reactions, with scales and measurement frequencies that allow for a more accurate read on impact.

    Unlike conventional research, the data collection pattern in these techniques allows advertising to be evaluated second by second, making it easier to pinpoint exactly where intervention or correction is needed.

    In addition, pairing the analysis with eye tracking reveals the extent to which every element of the commercial was — or wasn’t — actually perceived by participants. This is a valuable finding, since it shows which elements are driving likability and which still need more emphasis, whether in the message, the brand itself, or the context.

    Why These Results Are More Reliable

    The main strength here is the high reliability of the results, simply because they’re entirely spontaneous biometric measurements — not filtered through interpretation or rationalization.

    The numerical format of these results is another key advantage: it’s accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of technical background.

    Unlike conventional research — where a “likability” diagnosis might be read as a straight “approval” or “death sentence” — neuromarketing makes it possible to improve and refine a solution instead.

    A New Way of Working Together

    Once the initial hesitation around this newer approach fades, and the usual distrust between the agency (creative side) and the research firm (analysis side) is overcome, a new kind of working relationship becomes possible.

    That partnership — using these research techniques far more intensively, not just on the finished campaign but from its inception — allows each step to be tested from day one.

    It’s worth being clear: this kind of collaboration between the advertising agency and the research firm would never mean interfering with the creative process itself. Research specialists simply don’t have that expertise — but working closely together is very likely to result in more effective campaigns.

    —

    *Reference: Faris Yakob, “Being Well Liked” [confirm full title, publisher/year, and link to the original source if available].*

  • Brand loyalty and neuromarketing

    Brand loyalty and neuromarketing

    Brand Loyalty and Neuromarketing

    The meaning and scope of “loyalty” have undergone considerable change, much like most of the ideas and assumptions we grew used to before the digital age.

    Several voices even argue for abandoning the pursuit of brand “loyalty” altogether, for reasons ranging from heavy investments that never delivered the expected return, to loyalty programs that simply failed to drive sales.

    From Repeat Purchases to Experience

    Until recently, “loyalty” was understood — and largely limited to — repeat purchases: as constant and frequent as possible, and that was the whole story.

    The idea centered almost entirely on the transactional: loyalty programs where every ninth purchase earned a free tenth item, or simple discount coupons. In principle, both sides — brands and consumers — walked away satisfied, ready to start a new cycle on the same basis, in the same format, repeating with little real differentiation.

    But the concept of “loyalty” in the digital age has taken on very different connotations from those it had when the brand-consumer relationship was fundamentally built on physical presence — and that shift now demands a different response from brands.

    There are growing signs that consumers are no longer fully satisfied with the old model’s solutions, and that they expect something more than a purely transactional relationship. Increasingly, consumers link “loyalty” to brands that deliver a remarkable experience — consistently, over time, and above all, one that adds real value to the relationship.

    So how do you “deliver” a better experience to the consumer? What should brands pay attention to so that this delivery meets these new expectations and translates into the loyalty they’re after?

    From Consumers to Brand Advocates

    The idea is to move beyond transactions and cultivate active attitudes and behaviors among consumers — turning them into brand “advocates,” “enthusiasts” and “promoters.”

    These are consumers who defend, publicize and recommend the brand to acquaintances, coworkers, family — and, above all, on social media. Consumers who, in return for the experience they received and in appreciation for the product or service, spontaneously start praising, sharing and commenting positively about the brand.

    In other words, this still-emerging kind of “loyalty” happens when consumers go beyond the simple purchase and naturally take on an active role, with concrete, spontaneous actions directed at the brand.

    Unlike the conventional “one-to-one” effect, what emerges here is “one-to-hundreds,” “-thousands,” perhaps even “-millions,” given the exponential reach of social media.

    Three Pillars: Relevance, Utility and Purpose

    Brands essentially need to work on three fronts to give consumers a better, more memorable experience: **relevance**, **utility** and **purpose**.

    **Relevance** comes from a brand’s understanding of the customer journey — making decisions easier for consumers and offering them what’s already known to interest them, using big data as the underlying platform. Think of Amazon or Netflix suggesting new products based on past preferences, or on what large numbers of other people are choosing right now. The examples don’t stop there — they extend to Booking.com, Airbnb, iFood, Uber, international publications, and countless other active brands already operating under this model.

    Delivering simple experiences that align with each consumer’s own history — making the choice easier for someone “lost” among countless options — is a powerful driver of sales growth and a key part of consolidating loyalty.

    **Utility** means using the resources the digital medium offers so the consumer experience isn’t just interesting, but also easier, more pleasant, and genuinely solves problems or removes friction. Experiences that achieve this add value, retain customers, and can even be fun — like the ASOS app, which identifies similar clothing items from photos, or lets customers try on clothes at home for free. Or like certain hotels, where guests can review their bill online from their room, authorize the charge, and skip the checkout line entirely — combining simplicity with convenience. The examples keep multiplying: mobile boarding passes, hotel rooms that need no physical key or check-in, one-tap buttons that reorder your last pizza — all speeding up the process.

    **Purpose** is about how brands reveal what they are, what they think, and what they value. While many of these initiatives predate the digital age, today’s tools have given them far greater visibility and reach. The goal is to strengthen the relationship, reinforce values, and build consumer identification with those ideals — enough to justify a purchase because it makes people feel like better versions of themselves, contributing to causes worth supporting.

    A few examples: Patagonia and responsible consumption, or recycling used gear; Airbnb’s special program supporting victims of natural disasters, like the Florida hurricane; Adidas’ “Team Messi” campaign (across Twitter, Facebook and Instagram), where 94% of participants were new to the brand and now spend an average of €10 in e-commerce.

    But like almost everything, it’s a double-edged sword. Success in this strategy can take a brand to new heights, with far deeper loyalty — but a misstep can mean losing consumers, eroding the brand, and sliding right back into purely transactional territory.

    The Research Challenge

    That leaves research with a real challenge: how do you measure the type, quality and intensity of the experience delivered to the consumer? How do you assess whether that experience actually had an impact — and whether it translates into future purchases?

    Some answers can come from conventional market research techniques, but it’s clear there are limitations, and a need for deeper answers. Simple scales like “yes/no” or “good/average/very poor” aren’t the most adequate metrics — they don’t allow for much progress in evaluating experience, even if they’re a relevant starting point.

    Neuromarketing, paired with conventional research, already offers techniques and tools to dig deeper into most of these questions. In the end, the answers being sought come down to evaluating the reactions these experiences trigger: at what point they were impactful, how they stood apart from the competition, and to what extent they produced lasting effects.

    Neuromarketing-based responses tend to be more accurate precisely because they’re not based on rational or self-reported answers, but on spontaneous, instinctive emotional reactions to these stimuli and experiences.

    That’s why these metrics are far more sensitive and credible — both because of the precision of the technical tools involved, and because of most people’s well-documented difficulty in accurately describing their own feelings or emotions.

    The truth is, many of us don’t even know how to properly interpret our own emotions — let alone describe them or put a number on them. That’s exactly why neuromarketing can, and should, be used more and more often.

    —

    *Reference: Amy Brown, “Rethinking ‘Loyalty’ in the Age of Digital,” Admap, November 2017.*

  • Campaign Pre-Test

    Campaign Pre-Test

    One of the types of qualitative research we’ve carried out the most over these 25 years in the market is the pre-testing of advertising campaigns — whether for films, concepts, or even graphic pieces.

    Our analyses and results seem to be on the right track, judging by the volume of work and the steady return of agencies and advertisers for other projects over time.

    Starting Point: Focus Groups

    Like most players in the market, we typically rely on focus groups, usually segmented by age group, socioeconomic class, and — most of the time — geographic region.

    For smaller-scale evaluations, we run an average of around 9 groups. For larger national campaigns, demand often exceeds 20 focus groups.

    The use of verbatim quotes with edited audio — capturing participants’ actual statements and positions — was an innovation we developed that added a great deal of information and understanding to the comments and recommendations we present. Beyond boosting persuasive power, these audio clips consistently made testimonials feel real and credible, adding feeling and human nuance to the situations and considerably enriching our presentations.

    So much so that, on countless occasions, the interest of agencies and advertisers ended up concentrated almost entirely on the audio clips themselves, given the strength of the messages and information coming directly from the target audience.

    The Limits of Focus Groups

    Even so, in several of these pre-tests it wasn’t always possible to get a clear, unambiguous answer to questions of a subjective or emotional nature about the campaign concepts.

    The overriding impression was that a more adequate, reliable metric was still missing to support these kinds of questions, since focus groups alone weren’t always enough to resolve every doubt — for advertisers and agencies alike.

    Among the cases where responses weren’t always satisfactory: the impact of the campaign on those watching the commercial, or the extent to which certain positions were actually perceived as “security,” “trust,” or even what message really got through.

    On an exploratory basis, we tried complementing focus group assessments with individual footage of participants, evaluating their reactions through changes in facial expression — but without much success, since the variations were barely noticeable.

    We also tried other biometric measurement techniques, such as GSR (galvanic skin response), used abroad to predict box office performance for films and plays — but again with results that fell short of expectations and were hard to interpret for non-specialists.

    The Path to Implicit Testing

    At international conferences, both ESOMAR’s and NMSBA’s, we’ve consistently looked for new options that could add supporting elements to these questions in a way that’s transparent and clear for agencies and advertisers alike.

    This drive at Checon Pesquisa to innovate and diversify our approach — in pursuit of a better understanding of how people react to advertising campaigns — led us to implicit testing.

    Implicit association tests were originally developed as a tool to explore the unconscious roots of human thought and emotion, since people often struggle to express their own emotions, or don’t even know for certain what’s going on in their own heads.

    These challenges become even more pronounced with lower levels of education, or when people are shy — and social desirability bias (the tendency to give the “politically correct” answer) also shows up fairly often, risking the accuracy of the evaluation.

    The case for using implicit association tests in pre-test evaluations rests on their ability to measure responses, ideas and beliefs at a subconscious level, without relying on rationalization that isn’t always “genuine.” What’s more, the results are easy to interpret, with no psychology background required, while still being flexible enough to dig into the specific aspects of each individual campaign.

    The Checon Methodology

    Under our methodology, implicit tests take place after the focus groups, which serve as a reference point for developing the testing protocol — pinpointing exactly which aspects still haven’t been properly clarified.

    We recommend running implicit association tests with the same participant profile, split into a control group (people who haven’t seen the campaign) and a second group who see the material (film, spot, or graphic pieces) right before testing. This makes it possible to set a very clear comparison standard for assessing the impact of aspects that focus groups didn’t fully clarify.

    Each implicit association test generally runs 3 to 5 minutes and can assess up to 5 distinct attributes — usually more than enough for the demands we’ve encountered.

    We recommend a minimum of 30 tests: 15 typically with the control group, and another 15 with participants who watched the same material presented and tested in the focus groups. This number can be adjusted for specific situations that call for more granular results (by social class or age group, for example), or when comparisons against competitors are also needed.

    Advantages of the Method

    Among the advantages worth highlighting: needing far fewer focus groups, avoiding the repetition that typically sets in from around the 10th group onward, and focusing effort on measuring very specific aspects.

    Another strong point is having a tool that can evaluate beyond the conscious and rational — with metrics that, while not intended to replace quantitative research, complement focus group results.

    The result is savings in both processing and analysis time, as well as in overall investment, since implicit association test results are available immediately.