Forrester released a report on this issue last week (see here) and their answer is “Yes, but high costs mean that firms with big budgets lead”. This may be true and if it is then it’s more to do with the nature of using online communities for research. They mean building an ongoing relationship with a group of people than needs to be actively managed at all times. This is then available for the brand to dip into for research or to track.
The real issue here seems to be the shift from a project-based approach to research buying and running an ongoing research resource (which obviously has an ongoing cost). At FreshNetworks we think the benefits of using online communities for qualitative research are huge. We wrote our own white paper on the issue earlier this year (see post here). The depth and quality of insight you can get by building real communities with stakeholders can be incredible and the real value comes from the other benefits of building a community like this.
Traditional market research is very transactional. People answer a survey or attend a focus group. Using online research communities, brands can really engage with people. Involve them in their research, feedback to them and incentivise them not with the cash of traditional methods, but with the knowledge that their input is making a difference. Critically, and this is the really exciting bit, traditional market research depends on you know what questions you want to ask. With online communities, the community can tell you what you need to ask. And that’s probably something much more important and relevant to you!
So tomorrow morning I need to decide if it’s to be Boris or Ken. The mayoral elections in London (where actually ten candidates are standing) is almost certain to be a fight between two parties, or rather between the two candidates. Both of whom are known only by their first name.
It’s certainly been a tough campaign - nobody is quite sure what the outcome will be, and the opinion polls are equally as divided. Getting out information and informing the debate is more critical than ever in a contest like this and that’s why it’s surprising that we haven’t seen either candidate really embrace social media to help build advocacy for their campaign.
Both candidates have sites which serve mainly to broadcast news on what the candidates think, have said and done. And both sites ask you to sign up when you first land there - although this is more to do with building their contact list than a way to help you interact with the site. Facebook fares slightly better - there are a couple of hundred groups for each candidate (although not all of them positive) and both candidates have ‘pages’.
What’s really missing from all of this though, is real interaction with the voter. Where can I post a question to all the candidates and see their responses? Where can I truly compare their manifestos? Where can I see what they’ve been doing and where they’ve been going? Has either of them actually visited my neighbourhood? None of this seems readily available and the candidates aren’t making it easy for us to find.
Moreover, the online campaigning often feels either like a new way to convey a traditional message (often with the feel of paper manifestos put into html format) and is very much a push marketing message. I’d like to see more interaction because it would help me to make a decision. The age of townhall debates that people go to is over and TV debates really don’t let most people interact. We should be encouraging our politicians to engage voters and others online and holding the debate there - listening and feeding back as much as using the medium to just push out their message.
Much has been done, and more could be done. Voter-generated content is a big tool now in the US Presidential elections. But tomorrow when London elects it’s mayor too many people will be voting without really having had an opportunity to interact with and engage with the candidates. Me included!
