The past decade has been marked by two revolutions in market research and both are associated with the internet. The first is the move to online research, especially to access panels. Access panels are collections of people who have volunteered to take our surveys. Access panels have allowed us to provide speedy, cost effective research, using the compelling, visual medium of the internet.

The second is the growth of social media. Consumers are no longer passive. They are empowered; they socialise online; they get instant information about brands, often over their mobile. In this new social world the key question is who owns the brand? Brand owners are now part of a real time conversation where customers’ experiences and a brand’s performance are transparent for all to see. These new social media tools are moving us from access panels to increasingly socialised panels and to research based around communities, and they are one of the easiest ways for brands to converse with consumers.

Socialised panels are usually large scale. They are often built for our clients. You might think of them as proprietary access panels, but with a veneer of community that is added by using one or more online community tools such as forums, blogs, video and photo uploads, tag clouds, RSS feeds, wikis, profiles etc. But once we start to use these social media tools together we may create market research online communities (MROCs). What defines an MROC is a sense of a shared respondent presence and purpose. The big difference reflects the new world of social networks. In the traditional access panel model, only the panel owner knows that an individual is a member of the panel. In an MROC the identity of the respondents may be known to the other respondents due to the use of user names and through the building of reputations. This creates a shared presence in which relationships can be established between any of the participants, be they respondents, researchers, or clients, as they interact with each other.

One of the great benefits of creating an MROC is that we can allow the data to emerge. We are setting the research agenda but the respondents, clients and researchers are co-creating the flow of data, reacting to the unexpected from wherever it comes, and this can lead to unexpected and interesting insights emerging. For example we built a short term MROC for the UK Office of Fair Trading to explore the future. In the published report the OFT wrote “It is fair to say that the exercise has exceeded all our expectations … the consultation has been enormously valuable to us.” This was in no small part due to the creative interactions of our community members and the rich diversity of comments and suggestions that the community generated.

This is the power of research communities; they allow collaboration, co-creation, and most importantly conversation. At their heart is the reality of the brand holding open and creative conversations with its customers.

WANT TO READ MORE?

GfK Research Summit 2010: The Digital Connected Consumer

PHOTO COURTESY OF:

victoriapeckham

  • Share/Bookmark

The recent actions of the world’s biggest social network reveal its beliefs and ideals for digital society; openness and one identity. However, theories suggest that self identity is process of story-telling under constant revision. With our research showing that social networkers are actively sharing different amounts of personal information across different networks, the future of digital society lies in giving users more control over their personal and private identities online.

In April 2010, the actions of the world’s most used social networking site struck several chords of concern in our digital society. In changing default privacy settings for users, Facebook placed privacy as central to the internet paradigm. Discussion, debate and protest from social networkers, internet users, reporters, commentators and the 1,400 people based at the corporation’s HQ in California were focussed on notions of privacy.

The fiasco placed Mark Zuckerberg’s leadership of Facebook under scrutiny and led us all to question what it is exactly he believes in. In an interview published in Wired UK Magazine (August 2010), the founder speaks openly about his hopes for “one identity” developed through greater openness online. But events in April revealed that very few of us are willing to expose every part of us to the rest of the online world.

The privacy debate to date has focussed on the actions of two internet giants; Facebook and Google. One tracks, indexes and sells information about us online, the other encourages, nudges and opens the door to self-exposure to the digital world. However, the debate has yet to focus on the beliefs and ideologies that underpin the actions around privacy of Facebook and Google. One thing we do know is that Zuckerberg’s actions around privacy on Facebook reveal his beliefs around “one identity” where each of us behaves and projects the same personality wherever we are on the internet. Therefore, our Facebook profile will look exactly the same as out LinkedIn profile and we will expose the same person wherever we go in digital society.

I imagine that Zuckerberg dropped out of his psychology and computer science degree at Harvard just before class dipped into the work of Anthony Giddens; most students do as a right of passage. Giddens’ work offers some insight around the complexities of self-identity which has significant implications on actions around privacy in digital society.

Giddens claims that self-identity is a narrative each of us makes rather than inherits. It is not something static but is a ‘reflexive project’ i.e. something each of us continuously works and reflects on. “A person’s identity is not to be found in behaviour, nor – important though this is – in the reactions of others, but in the capacity to keep a particular narrative going” (Giddens 1991: 54).

Simply put, the theory means that our identities are built as we learn more about ourselves and ways in which to tell our story in a biographical form. Self-identity therefore demands full control over what to tell and where – something Zuckerberg and his team seem unwilling to grant. Self-identity in digital society is given agency through our different profiles. We can maintain and revisit our ‘social’ self on Facebook, our ‘professional’ self on LinkedIn and our ‘creative’ self on Flickr, and do so at our control. Zuckerberg’s ‘one identity’ however, means we share equal amounts of information continuously and wherever we go without the opportunity to hide or reveal what we learn about ourselves over time.

Recent data from a GfK NOP study on attitudes to privacy finds that social networkers are active in exposing different parts of themselves to different people and want full control in doing so. A large majority of people (78%) believe privacy settings on social network sites should default to sharing nothing.  On Facebook, most users (44%) prefer to share selected information with friends only. Only 7% are doing what Facebook hopes with regard to openness; sharing everything with anyone. On LinkedIn, people are a little more comfortable sharing everything with anyone (13%) perhaps explained by the theme of self-promotion on the site. Still, the preference on Linked In is for control where 35% share selected information with friends only.

The reality of the actions in April means that Facebook now has a more concerned and control-hungry user base. 67% of social networkers say privacy has become more important to them, and, interestingly, 68% say they would place more trust in those social networks who pro-actively help them manage their privacy settings. For Zuckerberg, that means maybe it is time to dip into some Giddens and understand that in digital society, individuals need to build their identities through a carefully managed process of editing and revising. Users want the control to build and shape what they learn and encounter with the passage of time.

RESEARCH NOTES

GfK NOP Technology conducted a survey among 996 UK adults in June 2010. The interviews were conducted online and are representative on UK adults who have access to the internet.

WANT TO READ MORE?

Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identify: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Polity Press, Cambridge: http://amzn.to/aM1h4M

Facebook’s privacy policy http://bit.ly/96GSdl

Mike Arrington (Tech Crunch) interrogates Mark Zuckerberg http://bit.ly/7cOFO2

  • Share/Bookmark

Social media campaigns via popular sites like Facebook may be able to get ‘Rage Against The Machine’ to Number One in the music charts but they will have little influence on the outcome of the 2010 UK general election. In contrast, the televised election debates will prove a powerful platform for the three main political parties.

GfK NOP Technology research conducted online (so we would also expect a skew towards online sources) shows that TV debates have the most influence on how we vote as a nation. Despite the fieldwork for our survey being conducted after only the first of three televised debates on 16 April, they are still the number one source of information for the election on 6 May.

As an example of this contrast, official viewing figures suggest that around 8.4m viewers watched the third debate, vs. 3.2 m UK visitors to the BBC news website (with 350,000 streaming the debates online).

Interestingly, a similar number of people had watched party political broadcasts and election news (45%) as the TV debates (49%) but their influence varies considerably. Of those who watched TV debates 26% said that they had had the biggest impact on who they would vote for. Conversely, for party political broadcasts or election news on TV, this fell to just 10%.

In an election where it is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between the parties and navigate through the spin, the TV debates have provided a platform for UK voters to truly assess each party. The TV debates put the party leaders on the spot, not in terms of questioning, (I’m sure they’re fully briefed) but in the way they respond to each other.

Debates offer the chance to see the personality behind the policy (or perhaps a carefully sculptured version of that image), which is more than can be offered by a written press release. Although the three candidates are still mainly dealing in easily-digestible sound bites, the televised debates offer those members of the public who perhaps don’t have the time or the inclination to read the manifestos in depth to get a grasp on the key issues.

In contrast, internet sources lack the ‘live’ human connection the TV debates provide. Twelve per cent of the UK have read election news via broadsheets’ online news websites, but only  two per cent of this group say that it was the biggest influence on their vote. The main social media site to register any influence was Facebook, where six per cent of people had discussed politics, but only one per cent of this group said it was the most influential source of information about the election.

The lack of influence from social media could also be down to a lack of investment and understanding. The Conservative Party have probably considered this medium the most, but overall, all three main parties’ online and social media strategies are pretty poor. For example, there are no obvious attempts to link social media platforms, like Facebook, to party promotional material. Furthermore, Labour MP Stuart MacLennan showed a complete lack of understanding about how Twitter works (you say things that are controversial… it spreads pretty quickly) and was consequently sacked for inappropriate comments.

Whether it’s a lack of interest from the public or a lack of understanding by UK political parties, online and social media will have little influence on how people vote on 6 May. Despite this, we strongly believe that new media will play a bigger role in future elections, just as it is increasingly influencing other areas of society.

For all those interested in the data from this survey you can view it here

RESEARCH NOTES:

GfK NOP Technology conducted a survey among 1279 UK adults between 16th and 21st April 2010. The interviews were conducted online and are representative on UK adults who have access to the internet.

  • Share/Bookmark

A recent UK study finds consumers have less faith in Facebook than either Microsoft or Google to keep their personal information private

Social networking sites typically involve disclosing often very personal information to your circle of friends and to this end, it is important to have faith that the social networking brand will respect the privacy of this information.  Recent research by GfK Technology indicates, however, that Facebook has lower levels of trust in keeping personal information private than either Microsoft or Google.  Given the remarkably high levels of usage of Facebook this is clearly a concern for the brand owners.


This illustrates the dilemma facing organisations such as Facebook – whilst consumer behaviour or personal information can be key to creating new services that are enjoyed by users, there is often a sense of unease about data being used in this way.  Furthermore, as is likely the case with Facebook, the illicit activity of unscrupulous users of the service (such as those posing as friends in order to conduct fraud of some description) has a knock-on effect for the brand.

It is also very likely that changes to Facebook’s privacy policy introduced last year have had an impact on consumer perceptions with much comment that they are designed to ‘nudge’ consumers into publicly sharing much more information.  Facebook meanwhile indicate that they are simply trying to encourage people to be more open with their updates.  Whatever the rights and wrongs in this situation if consumers suspect that the level of privacy that they signed up for is changing and even worse changing without their full awareness they will quickly start losing faith.  Facebook have recently made a few changes to the privacy settings control panel as part of an ongoing review of their data privacy policy. This time round, Facebook needs to effectively manage consumers’ expectations and their understanding of its privacy policy for consumers to place more trust in the service.


As cloud computing solutions become much more widespread the public debate over privacy and the use of personal information will reach new heights.  There could easily be significant public backlashes against brands that are considered to be making the wrong move in this space.

Research Info

*1000 online interviews were conducted by GfK NOP among a UK representative sample of internet users. The fieldwork was conducted between 12th – 15th February 2010

  • Share/Bookmark

GfK NOP research reveals most popular online brands in communication, entertainment and information services

The ‘Connected Life’ study, which asked 2,000 UK internet users about their favourite services, found 60% of music users stream music directly from the internet. While iTunes still leads the direct-streaming arena (17%), Spotify is coming up at a close second, with 12%.  Looking at all digital music users (not just direct streamers), 11% of these have used Spotify, making this fourth most popular digital music service, behind the more established Real Player (13%), Amazon (24%) and ITunes (50%). Another newcomer, Last.FM, also fares well with seven per cent having used the service; ahead of two of the pioneers of digital music mp3.com (5%) and Napster (4%).

Babita Earle, Divisional Director at GfK Technology comments:

“We’re finding that, while a few big, well-established brands tend to dominate, there are several newer services fast gaining ground and gaining market share. In all these online markets, where take-up of competitors’ services can rocket up exponentially through positive word of mouth on blogs and social networks, the big players will be keeping careful watch on these fast-moving, smaller challengers.”

Mapping and navigation is dominated by Google Maps, with 72% of those questioned having used the service. The AA follows with 40%, shortly ahead of Multimap (35%). No other brand scores in double digits – with Mapquest (7%), MSN Maps (4%), Yahoo Maps (4%) and Streetmap (3%) making up the rest of the top eight respectively.

While the dominance of Facebook in social networking is of little surprise, the extent of its popularity perhaps is. Almost three quarters (74%) of those questioned use Facebook as their main provider; with next in the list Myspace and Twitter scoring just 4% each. Bebo follows, with 2%, while a scattering of less popular networks each score 1% usage, or less, as the main provider.

Popularity in the Instant Messaging sector makes interesting reading – with the second favourite being via a social media network (16%); pointing to an increase in usage of IM as a result of the rise in social networking. MSN dominates the sector with 50% using them as their main provider, with Yahoo (8%) in third; followed by Skype (6%), AIM (5%) and Google Talk (2%).

MSN Hotmail’s long established lead in email remains strong – scoring 33% usage amongst those questioned. Yahoo (14%) follows in popularity; ahead of via media provider (10%) and via social network (6%). Google’s Gmail service records just 6% usage.

The Voice Over IP sector is topped by Skype – recording 60% usage – significantly ahead of its nearest rival Google Talk (13%). Just two other providers score more than 1% – VoIP.com and Gizmo, both with 3%.

Finally, pioneer Miniclip.com shares top spot in gaming with MSN Games – both recording 17% usage. Yahoo Games and Amazon follow (both with 15%); ahead of Addicting Games (10%) and ITunes (9%).

For more information about the Connected Life study please click here.

  • Share/Bookmark