It’s about a 4 min. read.
It’s been less than 48 hours after leaving the MRA’s Corporate Researchers Conference (CRC) 2016 in San Francisco and I’ve finally had a moment to reflect.
Three topics dominated this year: Innovation, Emotion, and Qualitative and Hybrid methods. If you created a word cloud from the sessions and keynotes, these words would pop, along with actionability, risk taking and impact.
INNOVATION: There’s a growing intersection between innovation and market research—the need for facilitation and moderation is expanding at the same time as more and more brands wake up to the benefits of co-creation with customers. Key takeaway: Researchers with foresight and adaptability can contribute at the fuzzy front end and not just after products are conceived of and developed.
EMOTION: Emotional measurement and neuroscience continue to be hot topics, and CRC was no exception. How do you get beyond the rational to understand the complex reasons customers make choices? What is the science behind emotions and how can we leverage our knowledge of social psychology and neuroscience?
QUAL & HYBRID METHODS: Seven separate sessions were devoted to ways in which qualitative research was a critical addition to quantitative findings and to storytelling. Methods such as observation, in-home (in bathroom!) ethnography, online communities and a Quant + Qual method used by eBay brought faster and better insights.
Other themes and learnings included: observe more (93% of communication is non-verbal), be prescriptive not just descriptive, walk/hydrate/power nap/meditate, think creation vs curation, design thinking, improv and that old standby storytelling.
Along with some interesting conversation, attendees heard some big industry news—the MRA and CASRO merger. As of January 2017, MRA+CASRO will now be the “Insights Association”. Most members favor the merger and look forward to one cohesive professional organization. It makes sense to me too, and I thank those who surely worked tirelessly to make this happen. I just wonder about the name. After all of the talk of “actioning” at the conference (and in our daily work), I’d like to see the name reflect more than just insights—it feels limiting–stopping short of the more important “impact”. I would like to be associated with the result in addition to the insight. Let me know if you agree or disagree.