TechTalk - The UX Edition

© GfK Business & Technology 2011 © GfK Business & Technology 201102 03

TechTalk3-2011

Welcome to our latest edition of TechTalk, our magazine that provides your consumers perspectives on hot topics in technology research. For this edition we are taking a close look at the User Experience, an area that is rapidly becoming a key driver for customer retention as our main story explores.

Our research of over 4,000 smartphone users across nine markets discusses the way in which simplicity, integration and access are key parts of the user experience on which brands will increasingly need to focus in order to drive business. New areas of the user experience such as Discoverability are also taking centre stage; how do you encourage consumers to explore their technology and discover new digital experiences? Our research on turning UX into a hard ‘currency’ also discusses the way in which brands can really integrate this into

their business planning. The ever diverse range of topics in TechTalk from gamification and viral marketing through to consumerisation of IT resources reflects the exciting nature of our category and the discussions we are having with our clients. We welcome continuing conversations so do reach out if you want to explore any of these topics further.

Happy reading!

Anette BendzkoGlobal Head of GfK Business & TechnologyTel: +1 847 371 1585Email: [email protected]

Contents

Editorial

04

Switching your digital ecosystem: a painfulprocess?

Discoverability drives choice, adoption and loyalty in the digital market

Turning UX into hard metrics: the crucial role of User Experience (UX)

Gamification: when brands get playful to engage with customers

Is the end in sight for the personal navigation device? It depends how good the zoom is on your smartphone’s camera

Consumerization of IT resources: brings headaches for business

Charlie bit me: how can brands create viral marketing materials?

Where next for word of mouth?

Loyalty in telecoms across the generations

Your mum wants to be your friend: accept or reject?

Analysis: what gives our qualitative research the X factor

Trends Opinion

04

12

16

18

36

44

22

28

32

40

48

23 17 13

Keeping you up to date with the latest news from GfK

Inside GfK52


GfK TechTalk - November 2011 UX: Digital Ecosystems

Easy access to content across numerous devices is driving higher levels of loyalty to content ecosystems, leading consumers to believe that switching their digital life to an alternative provider is a difficult chore. For some (Apple iPhone & iPad owners in particular) the thought of switching is considered as difficult as moving bank accounts. It follows that digital providers that create harmonious user experiences across their digital ecosystems will be able to increase consumer loyalty. GfK’s research examined some of the key areas of smartphone user experiences and their impact on switching behavior.

There is no doubt that the use of connected devices (devices that are connected to the internet such as smartphones, tablets, laptops and now TV sets) is changing consumer behavior. The availability of apps and digital content has been extremely important for the explosive growth of smartphones: almost every third mobile phone (29%) sold in 2011 worldwide is a smartphone (source GfK Retail and Technology data). But a more subtle area, and one with growing importance, is the user experience on these connected devices. While consumers become used to increasingly intuitive and seamless interactions with the interfaces on their smartphones - as the connected

Switching between smartphones (differentiated by their OS e.g. Android) is becoming increasingly difficult for consumers. When benchmarked against everyday services and utilities, consumers worry more about having to switch the type of smartphone they own than their insurance, home telephone or pay TV providers. Simpler, integrated user experiences are playing a huge role in driving this aversion to switching. These user experiences are no longer just device-specific, but relate to the wider ecosystem of digital content and devices.

swITchInG yoUr dIGITal EcosysTEm: a paInfUl procEss?By Richard Preedy & Ryan Garner


Figure one: Perceived difficulty in switching providers (% of rankings).

Figure two: Loyalty to smartphone type

75%

70%

65%

60%

55%

50%1-2 Services 3-4 Services 5-6 Services

% s

tate

d lo

yalty

to s

mar

tpho

ne ty

pe

Number of services used on smartphone

Loyalty to Smartphone Type

7-8 Services 9+ Services

devices become more complex and advanced beneath the surface - consumer behavior is being impacted in new and fascinating ways.

GfK recently conducted research among smartphone owners in nine countries around the world; Brazil, China, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, the UK and the US. We examined some of the key areas of a smartphones user experience and its impact on switching behavior. There are inevitable differences between the countries due to their varying levels of digital and technological development. Despite this, there are universal trends such as: the more mobile services that consumers use, the less likely they are to switch their smartphone type in the future (See data in figure one).

GfK has contended before that content and services drive appeal and loyalty to smartphone providers. The data above shows that those more engaged – i.e. use more services on their smartphone – are more likely to state their future loyalty to their current smartphone type. The data in the figure two shows that the tipping point for this uplift in loyalty is at 7 or more services.

There are some interesting country differences too, European countries (the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy) use fewer services on their smartphones compared to non-European consumers in the US, China, Brazil and Japan. Consumers in the US are the most likely (61% of all US smartphone users) to use 7 or more services followed closely by China (56%) and Brazil (53%). This high level of service usage on smartphones has implications for the user experience. The research uncovers three core areas of the connected device user experience that impact service usage and loyalty. These are outlined in more detail below:

SimplicityOver the years, smartphones have become infinitely easier to use which has empowered consumers to use more advanced features and to do more with their phone. Nokia, the early pioneer of advanced mobile phones, released the first mobile phone with a WAP browser in 1999 - the 7110. However, back then browsing the internet on a PC was a cumbersome experience and trying to access small bits of web-based information on a mobile phone was never going to be a simple process, without even thinking about creating “enjoyable” user experiences.

Since then, user experiences have gone beyond the functional and have been refined to a level that add an element of “intimacy” and “discoverability” which creates new and fun experiences for the end user. We’re now at a stage where new mobile device technologies software and advances in mobile networks have made

overall each of the three core areas of the user experience; simplicity, integration and access have similar levels of importance; however there are some interesting country differences.

consumers in western mature countries place greater emphasis on simplicity than integration and access to services. In contrast, chinese consumers place greater importance on the ‘access’ of content with 92% of consumers stressing the need to access content across all devices.



internet-enabled applications commonplace among most smartphone owners and a key driver of handset selection. A growing number of people are finding a smartphone solution that they are comfortable with. Consequently, almost three in four (72%) smartphone owners state that they find it easy to access applications and navigate the menu system on their phone. These subtle refinements of the user experience have become immensely important to the consumer. Our research shows that disrupting this set-up, (i.e. moving from a smartphone set-up that is known by the consumer to a new unknown one), has become a huge barrier to switching their smartphone type or digital ecosystem.

IntegrationAs smartphones become more advanced, creating a smooth user experience becomes a more complex task. In order to make the most out of the wide-ranging capabilities of smartphones, the functions, features and services need to work in harmony. (Having the option to immediately post a photograph you’ve just taken with your phone to Facebook is a good example of this harmonization).

A significant proportion of smartphone owners (71%) now believe that the various features, services and apps on their phone work seamlessly with each other. Nevertheless, regardless of this high approval rating, the proof of well-executed integration and a smooth user experience is found in the usage patterns of consumers. By examining our data more closely, we find that those who use more services on their smartphones believe that the services and features offered are much more tightly integrated. Furthermore, those who use more services on their phones are more likely to consider staying loyal to their current smartphone type. Well executed service and hardware integration are therefore having a positive effect on consumer loyalty.

Tighter integration of services also allows for more intelligent use of customer usage and purchase data. Companies that exploit ‘Smart Data’ will effectively yield greater results in engaging consumers with their service or brand. Recommendation engines are a prime example of this: these services provide new product or service recommendations to the end-user by analyzing past usage and purchase data. This intelligent use of customer data adds greater relevance and discoverability which, if executed well, can heighten the user experience.

consumers who are building a library of media and content are demanding access to their digital life regardless of the device they are using.

almost three in four smartphone owners (72%) believe it is important to be able to access the same content (music, videos, books, apps, etc.) on any internet enabled devices (smartphones, tablets, pc, TV sets, etc.).

AccessMany consumers who have owned a connected device are likely to have a varied collection of digital media, including music, videos, books, magazines and apps. This new ‘digital life’- where the consumer has invested time and money collecting digital content - inevitably brings new usability demands.

Consumers who are building a library of media and content are demanding access to their digital life regardless of the device they are using. Almost three in four smartphone owners (72%) believe it is important to be able to access the same content (music, videos, books, apps, etc.) on any internet enabled devices (smartphones, tablets, PC, TV sets, etc.). As one would expect, this becomes even more important among those who own a tablet as well as a smartphone and PC – 80% of this sub-group agree. Cloud-based services are being rolled out by many service providers to offer solutions to consumers’ content ‘access’ user experience needs.

Overall each of the three core areas of the user experience; simplicity, integration and access have similar levels of importance; however there are some interesting country differences. Consumers in western mature countries (particularly France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK) place greater emphasis on simplicity rather than the integration and access (from the cloud) to services. For example German consumers find their smartphones easy to use (84%) and place less importance on accessing content on numerous devices via the cloud (64%). In contrast, Chinese consumers place greater importance on the ‘access’ of content with a huge 92% of consumers stressing the need to access content across all devices. This finding aligns with the ‘Cloud’ research

“There are some interesting country differences too. European countries; the UK, Germany, france, spain and Italy use fewer services on their smartphones compared to non-European consumers in the Us, china, Brazil and Japan.

consumers in the Us are the most likely (61% of all Us smartphone users) to use 7 or more services followed closely by china (56%) and Brazil (53%)”



we conducted in the enterprise market, where emerging markets like China were leading the way in their attitudes and usage towards cloud based services.

These parallels in the consumer and enterprise markets demonstrate the thirst for advanced technology in emerging markets and their willingness to skip a generation of technological infrastructure i.e. in the consumer market skipping the desktop computer generation means consumers have little local storage (desktop/laptops have more storage space than mobile) and are relying on access to content in the cloud. In Japan, technology (especially mobile technology) is highly advanced and culturally customized. Japanese consumers place equal importance across all three user experience dimensions; simplicity (72%), integration (68%) and access (72%). Japanese consumers are very comfortable with the user experience of their connected devices so much so that the biggest barrier to switching smartphone type is disrupting their current set-up. This is also one of the biggest barriers globally (as detailed below) but in Japan’s case this is a lot more pronounced.So what impact does the user experience have on future smartphone purchase considerations? Of course, there will always be those consumers who are looking to switch their smartphone type due to an unsatisfactory service provision or hardware defect. And for those who are not subjected to such negative experiences, persuasive marketing from rival brands and/or peer influence will still encourage the thought of switching.

However, GfK’s recent research examined barriers to switching smartphone types. The list included brand and price considerations but the biggest barriers overall were related to user experience:

»» 33% disrupting your current smartphone set-up (i.e. the apps and features I use)

»» 29% having to learn how to use another type of smartphone

»» 28% having to move your content (music, video, books, apps, etc.) from one type of smartphone to another

The barriers listed above show the importance of the age-old mindset, ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’. Consumers become stuck in their ways and those who are satisfied with their current set-up will be difficult to tempt to a new platform. This mindset has only hardened with the growth of connected devices, maturity of technology markets (Japan) and their rapidly improving user experiences, especially when managing their digital lives.

This is perfectly exemplified when we look at those who own a smartphone and a tablet using the same operating system (OS). For this group, another barrier becomes a huge factor in their smartphone switching decision. Almost two in five consumers in this sub-group (38%) are reluctant to switch smartphone type because their smartphone and tablet would run a different OS thereby

The biggest barriers to switching smartphone types were related to user experience:

»» 33% disrupting your current smartphone set-up (i.e. the apps and features I use)

»» 29% having to learn how to use another type of smartphone

»» 28% having to move your content (music, video, books, apps, etc.) from one type of smartphone to another

losing the user experience benefits that come with it. This also impacts on the consumers’ perception of how difficult it is to switch smartphone types compared to other services and utilities.Overall and perhaps unsurprisingly, switching bank account is perceived to be the most difficult service to switch out of the list of services/utilities provided. When we isolate those consumers with both a smartphone and tablet with the same Operating System, the smartphone becomes the most difficult service to switch.

This finding shows the importance of the device portfolio in a service provider’s ecosystem, such as Apple’s. Apple was the first to launch a tablet, and they have since launched iCloud, which synchronizes content and data across devices. Google has taken a similar approach, making Android available on tablets as well as on smartphones. Google’s services have always been internet based so that users of those services will experience similar cross-device access to their data. Microsoft are also placing huge emphasis on their ecosystem of integrated services and devices and their latest push into the smartphone sector in 2012, led by their partnership with Nokia, will be an important step in bringing together this ecosystem. Furthermore it is not just Apple, Google and Microsoft offering these kinds of digital platforms. The importance placed on cloud based services was highest among Chinese (92%) and Brazilian (85%) smartphone owners. Whilst consumers in emerging markets aspire to western brands there is also a desire for

localized service provision. The opportunity in these markets will inevitably lead to digital ecosystems developed by local providers offering digital platforms that are localized to the needs of eastern consumers.

Regardless of provider, this cross-device accessibility of content is (to some) of great benefit to consumers. It will encourage them to invest more in their digital life and enable them to do and discover more. Those smartphone providers that create harmonious user experiences will be able to increase consumer loyalty to their digital ecosystems as consumers find it more trouble than it’s worth to switch manufacturers/ecosystems when they have found a system that works for them.

Brands competing in this space will be able to elevate their customers’ switching consideration to a much higher place. This investment in user experience could yield great results and those in dominant market positions at the moment would be difficult to challenge in terms of capturing market share. This is a luxury that many of the large high street banks have experienced for some time.

Source

The GfK report on UX and loyalty in the digital ecosystem research was conducted by GfK Business & Technology. It includes the opinions of 4257 smartphone owners in nine countries who were interviewed between 17th and 28th October 2011 using online interviewing techniques appropriate to the country.



‘Discoverability’ is the new user experience phenomenon providing the ability to drive exploration and trial of new functionality and services

User Experience – or UX – has historically been the discipline that has kept technology design honest. When all around them are losing their heads about the next shiny new technology feature, the UX experts are there, soberly insisting that any new design must first and foremost be seen from the user’s point of view. Is it usable? Is it useful?

So when one of the founding fathers of UX starts getting carried away about the intimate sensuality of a user experience, we might be forgiven for thinking that we’ve reached a watershed in the evolution of technology. That’s what the iPhone did for Don Norman1: “the iPhone felt like a piece of delight. It really is neat to go from one page to the other not by pushing a button but by swiping your hand across the page. The correct word is intimacy; it is more intimate. Think of it not as a swipe, think of it as a caress.”2

Norman is not losing his sober UX grip. He’s recognizing the fact that pleasure for its own sake is becoming as crucial to the effectiveness of digital operating systems as the basic UX fundamentals. We love to do that caressing swipe so much that we take every opportunity to turn the page, to flick the button – to find out what delight is hiding around the next corner of the digital interface.

What we are seeing is a new dimension being added to one of the core principles of UX: discoverability. Discoverability has always been a fundamental requirement for effective user experience: “the ability for a user of a design to locate something that they need, in order to complete a certain task.” 2 First you have to be able to discover that a piece of functionality exists, and then you have to be able to discover how to use it. But a new twist on discoverability is rapidly becoming one of the defining characteristics and key success factors for digital user experiences. This is the joy of discovery for its own sake – the pleasure of trying out an intriguing new App or widget, seeing if it’s enjoyable or useful, and either adopting it as part of your repertoire, or throwing it away.

In the increasingly mature market for digital experiences, with intensifying competition between the main digital ecosystem offerings (Apple, Android, Blackberry, Windows), the ability to drive exploration and trial of new functionality and services is vital. ‘Discoverability’ is the new user experience phenomenon providing this ability, combining Amazon-style, pleasurable, personalized discovery of new product and service options, the engaging and immersive experience delivered by the gaming industry, and the ‘viral’ infectiousness of quirky personal discoveries typified by YouTube.

Pleasure for its own sake is becoming as crucial to the effectiveness of digital operating systems as the fundamentals of UX design. We are seeing a new dimension for UX: discoverability - the joy of discovery for its own sake. Discoverability is about three key success factors: personalized discovery; game-like engagement and viral appeal. This new dimension is about understanding how to engage digital consumers – encouraging them in exploring, finding, trying out – ‘experiencing’ new digital stuff.

dIscoVEraBIlITy drIVEs choIcE, adopTIon and loyalTy In ThE dIGITal marKET By Simon Pulman-Jones

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 UX: Discoverability


Video clip: Volkswagen, The Fun Theory, piano stairs

The incremental enhancements intended to lock customers into a given digital ecosystem – whether it’s Apple’s Siri, or a television service provider’s 3D TV offer – depend for their success on customers being tempted into exploring and discovering them. How can companies foster the necessary urge to discover?

One powerful tool is fun. Volkswagen recognized this with their Thefuntheory.com initiative (“This site is dedicated to the thought that something as simple as fun is the easiest way to change people’s behaviour for the better”). The Piano Stairs commercial shows commuters exiting Odenplan underground station in Stockholm and being seduced into using the stairs rather than the escalator when they discover that the stairs have been converted into a giant electronic piano keyboard that plays when they walk up or down.

Many digital experiences have reached a stage of maturity at which usability barriers about how to use functionality have been largely overcome. At the same time, however, we are confronted by a new set of challenges – challenges to do with choice: what to use? - Which App to use? Which combination of Cloud and connectivity solutions to adopt so that it’s possible to enjoy valued content wherever and whenever it’s wanted? Which device should become the dominant ‘home’ or ‘hub’ device amongst our ecosystem of larger- and smaller-screened devices?

This new dimension of discoverability comes to the rescue of both consumers and companies. It can enable consumers, confused by too many options, to make choices that feel like happy, ‘meant to be’ discoveries rather than random or forced choices. And it can provide brands with a vital way to engage consumers and lead them towards new products and services.Three dimensions of discoverability are increasingly becoming key success factors for products, services and consumer experiences in the new digital ecosystem:

Personalized discovery: Amazon-style data- or profile-driven surfacing of possibilities

»» Game-like engagement: making the discovery of new options feel like the pleasurable result of a consumer’s own skill rather than something forced upon them

»» Viral appeal: the magic ‘I found it’ quality which drives YouTube-style selection and sharing

As a result, discoverability is becoming an increasingly significant factor in some key business issues for providers of digital products and services:

»» As the cross-platform media ecosystem battle intensifies, each ecosystem’s array of Apps and Cloud services grows richer and more complex. Making new

products and services within your ecosystem easy and pleasurable to discover and adopt is becoming a key driver of loyalty, and a barrier to switching to other ecosystems.

»» As seamless shifting of valued personal content between TV, PC, tablet and smartphones becomes an accessible, mainstream proposition, consumers are faced with the challenge of accessing familiar content experiences on new devices, via new interfaces. Pleasurable exploration and experimentation with new options is becoming a key factor in driving trial and adoption.

»» As smaller, personal screens increasingly become the dominant device amongst people’s interconnected mobile and home device ecosystems, an increasing user experience interaction burden is placed on limited screen real estate. Where complex options cannot be laid out for consumers to view as easily as on larger screens, discoverability provides the onward drive to engage consumers and guide them through possible options.

So, increasingly, UX is about more than ensuring that we are able to execute desired tasks and functions via digital interfaces. The new dimension is about helping us feel that we are being engaged digital consumers – doing well at our job of exploring, finding, trying out – ‘experiencing’ new digital stuff.

Tom Chatfield, an expert and commentator on Gamification, and author of Fun Inc.4, talks about nurture as a fundamental aspect of people’s new relationship to digital media: “Nurture is the killer App.”5. By this he means that we are increasingly drawn to look after our digital tools and devices – hoping that they will develop and thrive. He quotes a teenage girl who said that she sees her Facebook profile, “as a little person I send out into the world – and I really hope it doesn’t get hurt!” It’s this urge towards

nurture that is being exploited when we are offered frequent updates to the Apps that we’ve downloaded. Somewhere in the recent past, software updates have shifted from being about periodic step-changes in the level of functionality being offered, to being near-constant incremental adaptations in the evolution of our digital experiences. So we are encouraged to be constantly discovering new ways to improve our digital fitness via new enhancements to operating systems, or new Apps. In this way, the smartphone ownership experience is like that of a Tamagochi – the little electronic pets that require constant care. Our instinct to nurture our devices is a key element of discoverability – driving us to try new stuff that might help our devices thrive – and, by extension, us with them.

Discoverability will become increasingly important in driving acquisition and retention of customers within fast-evolving new digital ecosystems. Many are looking to the games industry for know-how about delivering the fun, onward exploratory drive, and engagement required. This is a reflection of just how much the UX stakes have risen in the new world of digital experiences – where success depends not just on the effective and delightful delivery of core features and functionality, but also on the elusive magic ingredient that generates fun and engagement. As Rovio, the creators of Angry Birds have admitted, “for every Angry Birds, there are a hundred dead birds!”7. Coming up with captivating and intriguing digital experiences is no simple matter, and the success of future digital user experiences will increasingly depend on high-quality creative talent alongside the user-focus and disciplined logic of traditional UX design.

Sources

1) Just Noticeable Difference: the website of Don Norman (www.jnd.org)

2) “Why do some people really hate Apple?” Charles Arthur, The Guardian, Tuesday 6th October 2011 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/06/why-do-people-hate-apple)

3) “The myth of discoverability”, Scott Berkun (http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/26-the-myth-of-discoverability/)

4) www.thefuntheory.com; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lXh2n0aPyw

5) “Fun Inc.: Why games are the 21st Century’s most serious business”, Tom Chatfield, London 2010

6) “The irresistible power of digital play - Why Brands Need to Wake Up to Gaming.” Tom Chatfield, Games for Brands conference, London, October 2011

7) “Let’s Get Started - Games as the Fastest-growing Media Category of the Age: how can brands harness this explosive growth?” Ville Heijari, Rovio Mobile Ltd, Games for Brands conference, London, October 2011

discoverability is becoming an increasingly significant factor in some key business issues for providers of digital products and services



This has not always been the case, with UX historically being considered a discipline that is often separate from overall marketing prerogatives; a stage undertaken as something of a hygiene factor to ensure ‘all is well’ before getting on with the ‘more important parts’ of the marketing cycle.

The emergence of the central role for UX is clearly to be applauded by those of us who always considered that the User Experience is, after all, what consumers are buying so we had better get it right! However, this move has brought with it expectations for hard data to support decisions about the product form factor or user interface. After all, if tough decisions about the User Experience have to be made then it is perhaps not unreasonable to demand hard metrics to assist in the decision making. Historically this has been a problem for UX as the discipline has to date been largely qualitative in nature and generally not provided hard metrics into the business.

To overcome this and enhance the impact that UX can make on business performance, GfK SirValUse (our global UX team within the GfK business) has developed a set of UX performance metrics, so for the first time we can provide brands with a standardized UX currency. Our approach covers the hygiene aspects of usability (‘was I able to do what I wanted to do?’) through to the more holistic aspects of the user experience (such as ‘Was I able to explore and discover new features easily?’).

The two key strands of UX assessment are included – consumer reaction is obviously there but perhaps surprisingly for those immersed in market research methodologies, expert judgment is also included. Our view is that expert opinion is critical to retain as there are some key aspects of design that are long known

to represent good practice but are difficult to explore only via consumer sessions.

GfK has undertaken validation work using independent academic evaluation to assess the the value of this approach. We tested four smartphone models (each with a different OS) and found consumer reaction to significantly rate the iPhone much higher than other models on measures around ‘fun’, ‘fit’ and ‘feel’ but the expert opinion relating to the UX found its score only slightly higher than other smartphones tested. Both judgments are valid, integrating them to provide a single coherent measure to use within a business has proved to be an exciting development for the future direction of UX.

Next steps in our development are to explore (with our database in GfK Retail &Technology) the impact of the UX metric on sales volumes. We aim that this will not only validate the relationship between the metrics and business performance but also fundamentally position UX as the key business metric that any brand in tech markets needs to get right.

GfK sirValUse (our global UX team within the GfK business) has developed a set of UX performance metrics, so for the first time we can provide brands with a standardized UX currency.

TUrnInG UX InTo hard mETrIcsBy Tim Bosenick & Sonja Kleinschmidt

The importance of the User Experience (UX) is increasingly recognized for the crucial role it has to play in take-up and loyalty of devices & digital services. The consumer devotion to their product eco-system of choice, the way in which users are encouraged to explore and discover new service facets, the ease with which it is possible to execute the actions you want quickly and easily; all these are core drivers of adoption and loyalty driven by the User Experience.

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 UX: Measuring User Experience


Marketers are increasingly turning to ‘Gamification’ to increase loyalty and change the way in which people interact with their brand. But what exactly is Gamification and how, if at all, should companies be using it?

Kam Star, CEO of PlayGen, has the answers – and one thing’s for sure: a successful Gamification strategy requires a whole lot more than just points and badges…

GamIfIcaTIon: whEn Brands GET playfUl To EnGaGE wITh cUsTomErsInterview with Kam Star, CEO of PlayGen

GfK: So, tell us, what is Gamification?Kam: Gamification is the application of gaming mechanisms into a real-world process, with the aim of improving the user experience through the notion of playing.

GfK: How is it currently being used in Marketing?Kam: Gamification marketing is being used in a number of ways, but its natural home is online – with prizes and rewards given to people when they post on blogs, share or comment. Really, it’s a way of sharing an individual’s engagement with a particular proposition. What we see a lot of is, if you ‘Like’ content, post about it, or do something about it, you are then eligible for points or scores that are redeemable – ideally for something meaningful that the individual wants. It’s a kind of incentive.

GfK: How, if at all, is it changing or shaping Marketing?Kam: To put it simply, it can change the conversation. When social media came along, many decided they needed a Facebook page or a Twitter account but without really understanding what this meant or how it would change the conversation between the brand and the consumer. The same can now be seen with Gamification. Many don’t realise that it can change how consumers perceive the brand and its values. It is right for some and not right for others.

GfK: Can you us a little more about what you mean by ‘changing the conversation’. That is quite an interesting way of putting it. What does that mean exactly?Kam: Everything that a brand does affects its identity, its persona. If, by using Gamification, a brand says “well, now I’m going to be playful”, its marketers must understand that this has implications for brand engagement. Those implications will depend on who you are, how you do it and how you frame it. I think that’s the thing that will essentially change the nature of marketing in some ways.

Sometimes when people talk about Gamification, they are actually talking about loyalty programmes. There is nothing wrong with loyalty programmes – we love loyalty programmes – but, again, if you bring in a loyalty programme you have to understand that you are changing the nature of the conversation. You are saying something new about where your brand is and how it should be perceived. And you have to be pretty careful that it’s something that can be sustained; if you whisk it away as quickly as you brought it in, you could end up doing lasting damage to your brand. In essence, it’s very important to take a

long, hard look at what you are doing and what it means – for you, for people talking about you and for others hearing it. There is no hard and fast answer. It takes a lot of focus and a real understanding of the bigger picture and what it is that you are trying to achieve.

GfK: On that note, do you think a brand in any industry or any category can use Gamification?Kam: The principle of engagement, particularly through playful means, can be applied to a very, very broad set of tasks. However, I do think that brands seeking to engage with gaming need to know what systems work and what their exit plan is. Right now, it seems that everyone is talking about how to get into Gamification, but without considering how to get out of it – i.e. how to avoid the psychological downside of giving people incentives and then taking them away again. I haven’t seen any strategy that says ‘this is how we will wind it down’ and I’m a bit concerned about that. In my experience, you need to think about what happens afterwards, specifically: how will we manage it? How will we grow it? How will we keep it fresh?

GfK: Can we now identify examples of proper Gamification versus more simplistic examples?Kam: I am not sure that simple is a bad thing. As you suggest, Gamification comes in different guises. On one end of the spectrum are the simpler, more points-based approaches. On the other are the more complex experiences with multiple factors; ones that feel a bit more like a game, perhaps with different kinds of themes and a narrative or storyline that people are following. Again, I don’t think there’s a hard and fast rule about this. You really need to look at the specific case and what’s going to work in that case. I think there are some good examples emerging.For me, successful Gamification looks like more engagement. It’s when people are coming back more often, they are doing more, they are actively encouraging others to engage with your brand, they are recommending your brand. They are, when all is said and done, buying more stuff. So, when Playboy uses Gamification and

Gamification is the application of gaming mechanisms into a real-world process, with the aim of improving the user experience through the notion of playing.

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 Gamification Interview


gets a 60 per cent growth in monthly revenue, well, that’s done right. Likewise when DevHub, a website which effectively gamifies website design, saw its number of purchases per user per month goes up by three times.

Then there are times when it goes wrong… for example, Tumbler, a micro-blogging site, introduced points every time someone ‘tumbled’ something. The result of this was that people went onto Tumbler, hit the keyboard randomly and then posted. This meant that the platform became completely filled with nonsense and lost a lot of users. It has never really quite recovered.

GfK: How much science is there behind this and how much is about intuitiveness? Kam: Its less down to the science and more about the arts, although it’s both combined. It’s a little like architecture or an amazing website user experience. You can’t say, ‘here is a formula and if you repeat this formula you will succeed’ because next time it will be subtlety different. When entering into Gamification, the ideal is to have someone on board who understands game design and someone who understands behavioural psychology. You just need people who have been around the block with the user experience and can give you some good insights. Then, you need to do closed beta community testing to identify where it can be improved and how it could go wrong before you deploy it across your entire public-facing brand. In some cases, this user capability testing has been missing!

GfK: Once the process is up-and-running, how much emphasis should be placed on tweaking and revisiting, or revising your approach?Kam: If you look at some of the very successful loyalty programmes, you will see that most of them – once they have established a particular mechanism – keep it fresh by introducing new offers or different ways of getting points. Whether it’s for supermarket club points or airline miles, they also keep it interesting by reminding people what it’s for, highlighting special occasions, that kind of thing. This needs to be a managed process because, once the novelty has worn off, it won’t continue to engage unless there’s real meaning in it. Therefore, part of any Gamification strategy should be to keep it fresh – by reintroducing various offers, keeping the game interesting, maybe changing some of the rules, introducing new things…

Probably a case in point here is Google, which gamified its news and gave out badges etc, only to pull it after quite a short period because no one had thought properly about the meaning behind it. I’m sorry if this sounds obvious, but this is what needs to be considered every time someone comes up with a new plan. And, when you look at some good examples, it’s clear that it doesn’t have to be complicated. Around a festival called Bamboozle, a company called CroudTwist were giving away VIP passes, the opportunity to be on stage with a band, merchandise, autographs, all the kinds of things that the people who were interested in going there would absolutely love. The meaning was obvious.

GfK: Do you worry about any fatigue in the wider industry with so many people now adopting game design and these more playful tactics?Kam: As a consumer, every time you come across something that is gamified, the first question you ask yourself is what’s in it for me? If that is answered very clearly, then you will engage with it. My worry is that the area will start to become a little like internet advertising; of course internet banners are there, but most people don’t really see them anymore.

When people become fatigued with something, they will ignore it. But I also think that’s when marketers will take the opportunity to do something innovative, creative and refreshing with Gamification, framing it in a slightly different way. That’s what we see with Facebook gains, with apps – it’s the same thing.

right now, it seems that everyone is talking about how to get into Gamification, but without considering how to get out of it – i.e. how to avoid the psychological downside of giving people incentives and then taking them away again.

GfK: Is it about giving consumers something they’ve never seen or done before, or is it about really getting to know what it is that your audience will enjoy and engage with?Kam: It’s both. If you can give people something they’ve never had before, if you can educate them as to why it’s a good thing, and do this succinctly and quickly, then the opportunity is enormous. However, providing what your users yearn to have and to be a part of, to make them feel valued – well, those are the fundamentals of a good user experience. I wouldn’t want to choose between those two approaches. I think you’d need both.

GfK: Do you have any more insights around what to do, or what not to do when it comes to gamifying the experience?Kam: Fundamentally, you need to understand your audience and their motivations, why they are engaging with your brand. You need to understand how you can create value from the thing you are asking them to do today that you didn’t ask them to do yesterday. Generating this value is very very important and the key to success. The complete opposite would be not doing this – to simply take some gaming mechanism and create some kind of system that you think could be really fun without asking the key questions… Is this meaningful? Does it create value? Does it create a connection?

GfK: You’ve touched on a few already but can you give us some examples of really good Gamification when we are looking at the outcomes and the impact it’s had on the brand?Kam: There’s a website called allkpop – an English-language gossip news site – that used Gamification. They doubled their number of link shares and massively increased the number of comments they had. It really worked for them. It was basically a very simple system, but very nicely integrated. There is another good example called Club Psych, based around a TV series called Psych. On the website there were actual mini games that you could play, like creating a virtual world of the set itself and sending it to your friends. The site more than doubled both the number of page views and the number of return visitors, so it had a massive impact.

GfK: Does Gamification work on any audience?Kam: In any audience you will have different types of people, and Gamification doesn’t work for every type. Twenty to thirty years ago, Professor Richard Bartle identified four personality types that engage in multiplayer games, and many have since confirmed that this is a good classification. Specifically, Bartle talks about Achievers (people who like to get points and who will love Gamification), Explorers (people who just like new stuff so will love Gamification at first but quickly become bored), Socialisers (people who don’t really care about points or badges and the like, they want to just socialise) and Killers (people who are most likely to spoil it for others and would enjoy Gamification if they can somehow harm other people, albeit psychologically). I think that in any audience you will have a whole mixture of different types of people. There are those for whom Gamification will always be fun and interesting. There are others who will be there for some other reason. If Gamification manages to tap into that, it will succeed. If it doesn’t, it won’t.

GfK: What does the future hold for game-based marketing? Kam: I think the future is very bright. I think it’s very playful. There are lots and lots of opportunities. The games industry has been around for about 40 years, perhaps a little longer, and even after all that time we’re still coming up with new genres, new ways of playing. I think, game-based marketing, wow! We are probably in year one or year two, and long may it continue – although I still think there is a distinction to be made between game-based marketing and loyalty-based, loyalty-driven campaigns.

I think that in any audience you will have a whole mixture of different types of people. There are those for whom Gamification will always be fun and interesting. There are others who will be there for some other reason. If Gamification manages to tap into that, it will succeed. If it doesn’t, it won’t.

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 Gamification Interview


To try and answer this, GfK spoke to Dr Dominic Yeo, an academic at University of East Anglia with a particular expertise on this aspect of consumer behaviour about research he had conducted whilst pursuing his PhD at Cambridge

The main findings from his fascinating research are that whilst there are many reasons why a piece of digital material can go viral, findings generally point to two key factors. First, the content itself is (typically) emotionally engaging and possesses strong ‘participatory potential’ to enable further conversations, inspire

new versions, spin-offs and so on. The second key factor is the need to ensure that the social-networked environment of the people passing it on is very strong with many followers or friends.

In terms of the content, Dominic’s own research has found that digital materials which go viral generally create a new spin on established behaviors. So, for example, we see twin babies appearing to talk to each other, a nerdy college kid doing his own take on star wars, a cat playing the piano. All of these are familiar activities, but with a highly unusual or provocative take.

Most of us love getting a link to a piece of internet material which we find amusing and then forward on to our friends. It’s harmless and generally leaves us with a good feeling so it is easy to see why many brands are so keen to get in on the act. It’s also perhaps not unreasonable to expect digital viral material to potentially work well for technology companies given that the target market is likely to be spending more time online. Of course some brands do this extremely successfully, but many others try and fail – so what makes some succeed while others end up in the outer reaches of YouTube?

charlIE BIT mE: how can Brands crEaTE VIral marKETInG maTErIals?By Colin Strong



Clip one: Yosemitebear Mountain Giant Double Rainbow

Clip two: Charlie bit me, again!

As Dominic says, “This means that the viral materials usually create some kind of ambiguity or controversy which generates conversations; this in turn drives consumers to pass it on”.

Discoverability also has a significant role in making digital materials go viral. Some consumers clearly love the whole process of discovering new pieces of digital material that they can pass on to their friends. The excitement of discovering new material is

then almost matched by the pleasure of sharing this with friends and followers who in turn feel this as they send it on.But ‘discoverability’ will only really work if those consumers discovering the material have significant digital networks. The double rainbow viral video with over 31 million hits on YouTube is a good example. This viral video, posted by Paul “Bear” Vasquez, tracks his sighting of, and emotional reaction to, a double rainbow from his home just outside Yosemite National Park. This video made no impact for a while until an influential blogger discovered it and shared it on his blog. It then went viral, clearly demonstrating the importance of social network in creating viral videos.

Dominic argues that if material that has content with viral potential is made more ‘discoverable’, the chances of it going viral will clearly be much greater. This is why brands will often pay influential bloggers to cite their material, effectively ‘oiling the wheels’ of discoverability.

To illustrate some of these themes, Dominic cites two examples, one is purely consumer-generated and the other is brand-generated. The consumer-generated example is the ‘Charlie bit me’ video which is famous for being the most viewed YouTube video of all time. It has had more than 375 million views and, apart from professional music videos, remains the most viewed YouTube video. The clip features two English brothers, aged three and one. In the video, the younger brother, Charlie, bites the

‘‘discoverability’ will only really work if those consumers discovering the material have significant digital networks. The double rainbow viral video with over 31 million hits on youTube is a good example. This viral video, posted by paul “Bear” Vasquez, tracks his sighting of, and emotional reaction to, a double rainbow from his home just outside yosemite national park. This video made no impact for a while until an influential blogger discovered it and shared it on his blog.



Clip three: JK Wedding Entrance Dance

Clip four: The T-Mobile Royal Wedding

finger of his older brother, Harry. This video has high ‘participatory potential’ in that it’s easily imitated and it is emotionally engaging; search on YouTube and you will find countless ‘Charlie bit me’ music remixes, alternative versions, and spoofs.The marketer-generated example is the ‘T-mobile Royal Wedding’ video which is widely shared but has not inspired many re-takes. Interestingly enough, this is itself clearly a derivative of the original ‘JK Wedding Entrance Dance’ which generated over 70 million views on YouTube.

The T-mobile Royal Wedding video was very timely as it latched on to the recent UK Royal Wedding at the time of its release, thereby conveying a sense of relevance and great fodder for conversations. While it is not easily imitated, it is certainly emotionally engaging.

Dominic’s view is that, in the two examples, there are slightly different viral mechanisms involved; in the consumer-generated ‘Charlie bit me’ example, which is more ‘organic’, there wasn’t

a budget involved to seed the video (e.g. to pay bloggers to distribute it). Rather, its spread was more dependent on the nature of the content, particularly its participatory potential. The marketer-generated T-Mobile Royal Wedding video on the other hand, played on a recent event by latching onto the popularity of another object and was widely seeded through social media. So, what it lacked in participatory potential (potential for imitation), it made up for by having lots of people passing it on. So what advice does Dominic have for a brand that wishes to increase the likelihood of making a successful piece of viral marketing?

The T-Mobile Royal Wedding example is, in all likelihood, the safer route for a brand to choose, as Dominic puts it, “because a digital content that possesses a high level of ‘participatory potential’ will definitely generate many spoofs which will almost inevitably entail something disparaging and not so flattering for the brand involved”. Trawling through the huge number of videos with ‘viral potential’ on YouTube, it struck me that the other element, the ‘discoverability’ of the video is something that brands are unlikely to want to leave to chance either when trying to guess which of the millions of videos across millions of topics are likely to be the next ‘Charlie bit me’.

Dr Dominic Yeo is Lecturer in Consumer Behaviour at Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia. He graduated with a PhD in Social Psychology from Cambridge University where he was a member of Trinity College.

‘‘The T-mobile royal wedding video was very timely as it latched on to the recent UK royal wedding at the time of its release, thereby conveying a sense of relevance and great fodder for conversations. while it is not easily imitated, it is certainly emotionally engaging.”



“I wouldn’t recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they’ve always worked for me”

- Hunter S. Thompson

Recently, for the first time in ages, a friend recommended an album to me and I went straight out and bought it. No listening to samples on iTunes, no streaming on Spotify, no whatever it was that we did before these formats existed - just me and my credit card. As it turned out, the album was disappointing. I don’t want to point fingers, and I’m not going to bore you with what it was, but it did spur me on to think about how the role of recommendation is being changed by technology.

When I was a few years younger (and remembering that is becoming harder), I bought all sorts of things because people told me I should. Music mostly, books, the odd film, and frankly tragic quantities of Panini soccer stickers. Essentially, my consumption was being determined almost entirely by my peer group and, looking back at it, a lot of canny marketers.

With age, generally, comes wisdom. In my case, with age came the obligation to try and forge a unique and distinctive identity. Whatever the reasoning, the key point is that whatever my peer group was listening to, reading, watching, or arranging into shiny, but overpriced sticker albums, became increasingly irrelevant. Instead, I started to discover the world of late-night DJs, independent record shops, and some elitist music magazines (the stickers were eventually forgotten).

As time has passed, the magazines have come and gone (unfortunately, with the troubles of the publishing industry, mostly gone), and I can’t really justify staying up until 3 a.m. to listen to Gilles Peterson any more. Recommendation, though, has persisted. I can catch up with Gilles Peterson digitally (and on demand), the magazines have been replaced by an immeasurable community of passionate (and, for the most part, knowledgeable) bloggers, and many record shops are building enticing, digital propositions.

Put simply, it’s become much easier for me to search, learn, discover, and consume.

So, how can we apply this one-man history of posturing and consumption? What are the commercial implications?

Let’s start with an obvious example. Amazon’s success has at least partly been a product of their implementation of recommendation mechanics. By digitizing and aggregating the process, and carefully controlling where and how the results are integrated into the user experience, Amazon has reaped the rewards. The process of searching, evaluating, and ultimately purchasing a product from Amazon is continually interrupted by reminders of what people searched for, what they purchased, and what they

whErE nEXT for word of moUTh?By Oliver Robinson

As consumers, we’re handing over more and more data about ourselves in exchange for products and services we take for granted. It’s this individual-level data that’s likely to provide the next generation of recommendation models, and the user experiences they fortify.

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 UX: Recommendation models


thought of it. Given the prominence of these interruptions, we can assume that the impact on revenue outweighs any negative impact on user perceptions. Indeed, if convenience and value have been the cornerstones of Amazon’s success, then the space afforded to recommendation in the user experience suggests that it doesn’t sit far behind.

That Amazon is orientating user experience towards recommendation shouldn’t come as a surprise, given the number of us who frequently look at personalized recommendations when shopping online (see chart above).

Of course, successful personalized recommendation is dependent on knowing you in the first place. Amazon isn’t alone in improving their capabilities here, but where they have their (more complicated than it sounds) algorithmic analysis of on-site behavior, other companies are adopting different approaches. Facebook probably knows you better than most, with users typically offering up a wealth of information voluntarily. Who you are, who your friends are, and what you all like, is powerful stuff on its own. Couple this with the growing tendency to

weave content into the fabric of the site itself (integration of The Guardian and Spotify are recent examples) indicates a desire to drive this understanding even further.

Apple is moving in a third direction. The introduction of Siri, a digital assistant - effectively artificial intelligence - suggests they’re trying to improve their understanding of you from the content level (i.e. which apps you use, what music you listen to etc.), to something more nuanced and personal. If Siri takes off, and starts being used by consumers for everyday activities, the data collected about how you live your life would be potentially game-changing for recommendation.Obviously there’s a limit to how far we can hypothesize about the long-term strategies of these players, but it seems clear that the potential for understanding their users is increasing. So, what could it mean for recommendation and the user experience? Let’s look at a practical example of how recommendation could be improved to further enhance a user experience. It’s an area that still has significant room for improvement (regular TechTalk readers will not be surprised by this theme).

Recommendation of music has come a long way in the digital era. The advent of services like LastFM and Pandora has increased access to a wider circle of recommendation sources. Rather than relying on your friends, colleagues, and a scattering of writers and DJs to guide you towards music, you can now take advantage of aggregated recommendations from millions of like-minded listeners, or an ever-growing database of music coded up to reveal patterns and commonalities between different songs.However, complex as these recommendation models undoubtedly are, they remain relatively one-dimensional. While the mechanics underpinning the recommendations differ, in both cases they’re driven by aggregating data at an overarching, global, and therefore fundamentally impersonal level. Music, I would argue, is consumed at a far more nuanced, individual level. So why shouldn’t this lead to recommendations?

The devices we use to listen to music are becoming increasingly aware at this individual level; they’re always with us, always on, and, without getting too theatrical, always listening. For example, when Apple’s recommendation service, Genius, runs on an iPhone, it could potentially have access to all the sensory and diagnostic data the device can collect. Data ranges from where you are, to what the weather’s like and what you’re doing. Speaking as someone who listens to music regardless, but also takes into consideration such recommendations utilizing this data could have profound implications.

The argument from existing services would be that all they require is for you to put forward an example of something that suits your mood and they’ll do the rest and, to be fair, they’re right. The truth is, I’m sometimes busy and always lazy.

Recent developments in music delivery, in fact all the content industries, have been built around improving access; essentially, minimizing the barriers to (legal) consumption. It’s hard to see how services like Spotify and iTunes can significantly improve in this respect. Instead, innovation (and differentiation) is likely to come from different elements of the user experience; socialization, for example, could be one dimension for improvement, and recommendation would be a prime contender for another.

Horace Dediu has attributed the disruptive potential of Siri (Apple’s aforementioned digital assistant) to the simplicity of its aim; helping you to ‘lubricate’ your life, by taking ownership of small tasks to free up your time. Perhaps this is the best lens through which to view the future of recommendation, how it can be best used to serve the consumer by lubricating their life - whether searching for a product or choosing what to listen to when writing a TechTalk article. The advantages of the aggregated model are clear, but the result remains frustratingly disconnected with the individual user experiences and their needs.

apple is moving in a third direction. The introduction of siri, a digital assistant - effectively artificial intelligence - suggests they’re trying to improve their understanding of you from the content level, to something more nuanced and personal. If siri takes off, and starts being used by consumers for everyday activities, the data collected about how you live your life would be potentially game-changing for recommendation.

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 UX: Recommendation models


A generation is defined by a common sense of identity with “new symbols, new people, new names” and the history, culture, and experiences in which they are preserved. Each generation is differentiated by its identification with different anchors and a collective persona.

The concept of a generation is inherently amorphous. For convenience, generational boundaries are defined by year of birth. In the US, the following definitions are employed:

»» Traditionals: pre-1946

»» Baby Boomers: 1946-1964

»» Generation X: 1965-1979

»» Generation Y: 1980-1992

»» Generation C (or Z): 1993 – ?

Traditionals, with their memory forged by the Depression and World War II, manifest a work-hard, save-hard mindset, combined with respect for authority and country. They grew up with radio, migrated to TV and most are now online.

Reared in a milieu of rebellion, Baby Boomers challenged authority. They saw the promise of a moon landing and experienced a political environment shocked by assassinations. Better educated and more affluent than their parents, they grew up with electric typewriters, but embraced PCs.

A skeptical, cynical Generation X with a conservative persona of retrorebellion emerged into some uncertainty: Social Security came into doubt; the dotcom boom imploded; the ravages of HIV/AIDS became apparent.

The achievement-oriented, high self-esteem Generation Y was reared in a world where everything from family and sexuality to race and religion were redefined, but also deeply shadowed by school shootings and terrorism. Generation Y witnessed the birth of social networking and embraced the ’i-everything’ personalized interconnected world and a democratized Internet economy.

Generation Z (dubbed Generation C for Connected by Booz & Co.) was baptized in a digitized, mobile, social e-world. Their sense of opportunity is paralleled by an eerie uncertainty about the economy, social safety net, failing schools and American primacy. They saw an African American elected US President before the oldest of them could vote, don’t remember a pre- 9/11 world and, alas, are too young to participate in the surveys on which this paper is based.

But does loyalty differ across generations?Traditionals exhibit the highest level of loyalty, having the largest proportion of Loyal Advocates, the most loyal customer group (1), followed by Baby Boomers, then Generation X, with Generation Y displaying the weakest bonds.

The differences in the magnitude of loyalty are greatest between Traditionals and Generation Y, the generations with the most degrees of separation. Baby Boomers lag slightly behind Traditionals in the share of loyal customers, while Generation Y is close on the heels of Generation X. Between Baby Boomers and Generation X, however, there is a relatively sharp drop in the percentage of Loyal Advocates.

On the flip side, when looking at customers categorized as least loyal (the Exit Bound), the differences between the generations

loyalTy In TElEcom across ThE GEnEraTIonsBy Howard L. Lax

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 Loyalty in Telecoms Across the Generations

Marketers have long recognized generational differences in branding, media and advertising. Everything, from music and spokespeople to technology and channel is selected for target audiences defined - at least in part - by generation. But is there a generational effect when it comes to customer loyalty? Drawing upon the 2011 GfK benchmark survey of 4,642 cell phone users in the US, we explore how the generations are both similar and different in their degree of loyalty and the drivers of loyalty to cell service providers.


are more blurred, and Generation X has the largest share of Exit Bound.

While the level of loyalty exhibits a clear pattern across generations, the configuration of key drivers is more complex. The blend of criteria that emerges as drivers is mixed, with the picture complicated by the extent to which a specific dimension is a positive driver of loyalty (an enhancer), a negative driver of dissatisfaction (a dissatisfier) or a dual driver of both (2).

(Un)reliability of coverage, for example, jumps first for Traditionals, Baby Boomers and Generation X, but doesn’t raise a ripple for Generation Y – the only generation with a focus on phone apps. While the generations display much agreement on what matters, there is little agreement on either how positive or negative the impact is, or the magnitude of importance. Clarity of calls is universally important, but there is a vulnerability among Traditionals and Baby Boomers, while easy access to help indexes as a weakness for every generational cohort. The actual devices rank as drivers for every group, indexing especially high for Generation Y. Plan selection is also important to every group, while ease of switching plans is a driver for every generation with the exception of Baby Boomers (and another major vulnerability with Generation Y).

Are the differences generational or life-stage related? Absent a time series into the future, it’s impossible to be certain. Plan Selection, for example, is an enhancer for Generation X but a dissatisfier for Generation Y. While this might reflect life-stage economic differences – Generation Y, with less disposable income, look for lower-cost plans – it also seems to be rooted in different needs and attitudes, with the more-wired Generation Y expecting additional capacity, customization and choices. Other differences also point to enduring generational distinctions.

A Few Takeaways

»» Consumer perceptions, preferences and loyalty show both similarities and differences between the generations. Here are a few key takeaways:

»» Don’t take the loyalty of Traditionals for granted: they expect performance and aren’t willing just to settle. And don’t make the corresponding mistake of assuming that people in Generation Y are inherently fickle.

»» Avoid homogenization: one-size-fits-all approaches promise to hit a lowest common denominator that isn’t maximized for any group.

»» The positioning of products, services and brands and the associated messaging to build loyalty with the different generations needs to be customized.

»» While generational differences are real, the generations themselves are porous: generations are a state of mind, an attitudinal age, not a strict chronological definition.

»» Don’t make the mistake of treating the older generations as techno-adverse: even if they show more reluctance, less early adoption and different reasons for employing technology than Generation Y, Traditionals use technology on a daily basis.

Next up, Generation C, the oldest of which are just turning 18 are now old enough to sign for their own cell plans. This could get really interesting.

Sources

1) This is based on LoyaltyPlusSM which scores loyalty across emotional and rational attachments and actual and intended behavior and the level of dissatisfaction on any of the key drivers

2) Because the world is not linear, GfK distinguishes between positive drivers of loyalty or enhancers and negative drivers or dissatisfiers. Those performance criteria that ‘pop’ in both directions are considered dual drivers. Additional detail on enhancers vs. dissatisfiers is available.

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 Loyalty in Telecoms Across the Generations


Is ThE End In sIGhT for ThE pErsonal naVIGaTIon dEVIcE? IT dEpEnds how Good ThE zoom Is on yoUr smarTphonE’s camEra.By Katherine Savage

Personal Navigation Devices (PNDs) will still compete with smartphones for market share in the short-term. However, in the long-term, the increasingly comprehensive functionality of the smartphone, together with its ability to cater to consumers’ needs beyond simply mapping and navigation, is set to overtake PNDs.

If we go back to November 2010, GfK research showed that 70% of smartphone owners in the UK, Germany and France preferred to use a dedicated PND for in-car navigation rather than their smartphone. However, smartphones continue to offer increasingly sophisticated mapping, navigation and location-based services - so how has this affected the PND market, what would consumers say a year later?

Overall, the navigation market is not yet saturated. GfK surveyed over 1,800 respondents in the UK and the US in September 2011 and results showed that 37% owned neither a smartphone nor any kind of PND. The survey also revealed that more people owned PNDs than smartphones with 20% owning portable PNDs compared with 15% who owned just a smartphone. Just under a fifth of respondents owned both a portable PND and a smartphone. Of those, 91% use their smartphone for some form of mapping, navigation or location-based service.

It is not clear whether either PNDs or smartphones will gain an advantage over the other in the near future. A fifth of

smartphone owners who don’t currently have a PND plan to buy one in the future, whilst a slightly higher percentage of all PND owners (21%) intend to switch to a smartphone for navigation. Half of those PND owners planning to switch intend to use the smartphone they currently own, whilst half will buy a smartphone to use for navigation.

“The question is which device I choose – an actual separate GPS device, or whether I take advantage of my iPhone‘s capabilities and simply buy the TomTom application and use my phone as a GPS.

I can see the pros and cons of both. I particularly like the minimalist nature of having everything in the one device…why buy more things when you can simply buy the application?”

With the technology currently available, neither PNDs nor smartphones have yet to meet all mapping, navigation and location-based service needs. When people were asked for

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 Personal Navigation Devices


reasons for using their current devices, PNDs outperformed smartphones in all areas including screen size, strength of GPS signal and the ability to find the fastest route.

“Also went on eBay to look for a GPS watch and bought an older Garmin one for £50... Let’s be honest, the iPhone will not hold charge long enough to be an iPod and use GPS.”

Smartphones outperformed PNDs in all areas apart from the ability to access location-based applications, where, unsurprisingly, a quarter of smartphone owners use location-based applications to find people, receive promotions and offers, or to participate in games etc. In addition, 11% cited location-based apps as a reason for using their phone, compared to 7% of PND owners.

Whilst the number of applications available on PNDs is limited compared to those available on smartphones, they are there, and they are growing. TomTom‘s GO LIVE 1005 World allows users to access Google, Expedia and TripAdvisor to plan their journeys on the go, and to share their destination and arrival time via Twitter. Garmin SatNav owners can download specific Points of Interest (POI) including, for example, sports grounds and stores to their

The area of the shape is proportional to the number of mentions

“mr. @richgoeman is the @foursquare major of everything that’s #carmel! :)” Thank you...thank you very much :-)”

device, and can calculate fuel-efficient routes as well as running engine diagnostics using ecoRouteTM. PND’s encroachment into the world of smartphones even goes as far as the ability to make phone calls, as evidenced by Garmin’s nüvi 3790T, which uses Bluetooth technology to enable hands-free calls.

However, the range of location-based experiences available on smartphones remains far broader. In addition to this greater choice though, there is also the matter of consumers’ increased time and emotional investment in their smartphone. As every aspect of consumers’ lives goes mobile, there is a reliance on smartphones to fulfill more functions, both practical and enjoyable.

This is evidenced in the location market. Going beyond mapping and navigation services, location-based applications, which are currently available on smartphones, encourage high engagement. For the most part, this comes from frequency of usage. GfK did web- mining in August 2011 and searched the internet for mentions of mapping, navigation, and location-based services. Thanks to the posting of ‘check-ins’ on social network accounts, Foursquare outstripped the other location services by a long way in terms of the volume of mentions found.

Apps like Foursquare wouldn’t have achieved such high engagement based purely on how frequently you can use the service. Foursquare succeeds because it appeals to the consumers’ desire to play games and to compete with others. Groupon has become popular because it meets consumers’ demands for offers

of products or services they want to receive in their local area.

Consumers want to see more local offers, and they’d prefer to receive them on their smartphone rather than on their PND. When asked whether they would like to receive more offers from local retailers, 61% of smartphone owners would like to receive them on their phones, but only 49% of PND owners would like to receive them on their PNDs. A third of smartphone owners said they would prefer to receive marketing offers and promotions through their map and navigation services than via other formats like SMS/texts, emails, or banner adverts. Only a quarter of PND owners said the same.

Of course, the smartphone has one vital advantage over the PND – it’s always with you. It finds your location when you’re lost, helps you out with an unplanned journey and is there when you unexpectedly have to look up a location or place. Over half of smartphone owners had used the GPS on their phone to find their current location, or a place or POI near them within the past month. As smartphones prove their usefulness as a ‘back-up device’ for unexpected location enquires, their chance of becoming the primary location device increases.

As smartphone technology continues to make inevitable advances and to match PNDs in technical capability, the increasing reliance of consumers on their smartphones for all aspects of their lives will be seen in location services as well. With the added entertainment, deal-seeking, and social opportunities that location-based services bring to consumers, the dominance of smartphones in the long-term is certain unless PNDs can find a way to offer something that smartphones cannot.

Sources:

The survey on the use of navigation devices was conducted by GfK in September 2011 in the UK and the US. Over 1,800 respondents were asked about their current usage of navigation devices and future preferences.The web mining study was conducted between August 5th and September 1st and focused on mapping, navigation and location-based services brands.

“@TomTom on my #iphone saved my life in #france. The #pioneer aVIc 920BT let me down…”

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 Personal Navigation Devices


With increasing numbers of children using social networking sites, how do parents feel about their safety and is there anything they or other parties, such as network operators, can do about it?

yoUr mUm wanTs To BE yoUr frIEnd: accEpT or rEJEcT?By Anna Parkinson

Nowadays, each week seems to bring a fresh batch of news articles and stories about acting safely on the internet and the privacy of our behavior online. As much as we’d like it to be restricted to just our friends or, in the case of online banking, the company we are paying money to, there is always the possibility of the personal and banking details we happily share online being viewed out of context, and by people we may not know.

Adults rightly feel nervous about this, and such issues have led to Google setting up a new online social network (Google+) allowing us to control more closely who sees our behavior online. But what does it mean for our children? For as many articles that say children should not be allowed to use social networking sites and the like, just as many say that these sites can, and should, be used to enhance education, personal and social development, and also to allow children to progress in a world which will only become more tech-orientated.

Most recently we have seen the results of a study of 2,000 parents in the UK by Laptop Magazine[1], announcing that 55% of parents admitted to using Facebook for monitoring the lives of their children in order to read status updates, wall posts and to check photos. The most tech-savvy of parents have even logged onto a friend’s account to gain more access into their child’s digital life.

Chief concerns: meeting strangers for UK parents versus being victimized for US parentsGfK recently conducted a survey* amongst parents and other adults to gauge their opinions and attitudes towards children using the internet. In line with Laptop magazine, 52% of UK and 54% of US parents were very concerned that children can be members of social networking sites, compared to only 26% of US parents and 21% of UK parents being concerned about children belonging to online school-related communities. Not all

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 Online Security & Children


online social media sites are seen as bad therefore. Supposedly, this is because of the type of information and activities that children can share on social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, as opposed to those in the online school-related communities. The most concerning feature about using the internet that UK adults (parents and other adults) listed was being exposed to internet viruses. But when it came to children using the internet, the biggest concern named by UK adults was chatting or meeting strangers, while adults from the US said it was being victimized. And these issues are extremely prevalent among the horror stories we read in the press about suicides and physical attacks, following online bullying, and the dangers of meeting strangers**.

Parental actions: US parents take more action than UK parentsWhen asked how parents took action with regard to their children using the internet, US and UK parents differed not only in

what action they took, but in the amount of action too, with US parents doing more than their UK counterparts. Our survey showed that 68% of parents from the US (in comparison to 52% of UK parents) monitor their children’s online activity, whereas in the UK the most commonly-taken action was preventing access to bank details for use online by children. Despite chatting or meeting strangers being the greatest concern for adults, with regard to children using the internet, only 35% of UK parents put computers in a shared space, and only 26% of parents implement parental control software or activated online filters (26% in the UK and rising to 31% in the US). Similarly, only 26% of UK parents prevent access online unless under adult supervision (40% in the US) – rising to just 38% for parents with children aged nine and under. Apart from that restriction of access unless under supervision, it is children aged 10-12 who benefit from the most protective steps by parents, possibly because at that age, children are tempted to explore more

outside their comfort zone and start to understand the internet more fully and what access to new areas it can offer.

The dichotomy: parental actions are not living up to parental concernsWhat we are seeing from our survey is a disparity between parental concern and the actions they are taking. On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being extremely concerned), 76% of UK parents and 74% of US parents responded between 6 and 10 as to how concerned they were about children using social networking sites. And yet parents are only utilizing some measures of control - but by no means all - to protect or monitor children’s online activity. Despite 55% of UK parents using Facebook[1] for digital monitoring of children’s activities, advances in technology and ways to use the internet mean it is becoming ever more difficult to really know what our children get up to online.

Google+, for all its benefits, can in fact act directly against parental supervision,

“68% of parents from the Us (in comparison to 52% of UK parents) monitor their children’s online activity, whereas in the UK the most commonly-taken action was preventing access to bank details for use online by children”

since contacts in Google+ can be added to a specific ‘circle’ and the user is able to control which circle gets which kinds of information. Even if children don’t block parents from particular circles or filter what they see, it’s completely possible (and likely) that on Facebook or Google+ they may have set up multiple accounts or user names instead, without telling their parents.

Social sites as a learning environmentDespite the obvious concerns, there are many advocates of children using social media sites. Through early experience with social media sites, as another blogger has pointed out, there is the possibility to learn how to use the tools effectively, and to “minimize the potential impact of having the chaos of schoolyard squabbles and teen-learning experiences documented on the Web and broadcast to such large audiences”[2]. So, by allowing children to use social networks, possibly under supervision, children can socialize while learning through experience how to use them safely. Some parents may not want to interfere with this ‘learning experience’ because they could be perceived as ‘snooping’ or ‘spying’ on their children, particularly in today’s society and the right to privacy.

The impact of, and for, mobile technologyEven with the potential benefit to children from being online and the desire to avoid ‘spying’, parents will no doubt remain concerned. And with rapid and innovative developments in technology in general – and in mobile technology in particular – there are now even more ways to access the internet away from parents and schools. This leads us to the idea that maybe it’s not just the responsibility of parents to protect children online. Should social networking sites join forces with mobile phone carriers or manufacturers to safeguard children’s privacy online? There is a potential market for network operators in particular to be seen as supporting parents who are wary of their children’s online activity,

for example by providing extra services or features to help control online safety. A GfK study has shown that while children tend to choose the handset, it’s the parents who are the most influential in choosing the network for their children’s mobile phones.

But what about their children’s education? Many adults don’t realize all the extra boxes which must be ticked in order to remain fully secure online and to hold completely private social networking site accounts. Even subconsciously, children learn from, and mirror, parents’ behavior and social skills and, in the era of internet activity, this extends to online behavior as well.

As we progress into an era of extensive online activity, both on the go, and at home or at work, we must ensure that some barriers are put in place alongside better education, not only to protect our own privacy, but that of our children - even if only to avoid that awkward, ‘Your mum wants to be your friend’ request.

Sources

*GfK study conducted with 920 UK and 1,000 US adults between 20th-23rd May 2011.

**It should be noted that this data was collected before the recent London riots. It would be careless not to mention the role that Twitter and youths played in these events. Technology, when used for the wrong reasons, can be dangerous; therefore, a strong argument remains for the development of better education and barriers to prevent such misuse of an otherwise fun and informative service, particularly amongst children.

[1] http://blog.laptopmag.com/more-than-half-of-parents-use-facebook-to-spy-on-kids

[2] http://www.liberatemedia.com/blog/blogging/a-social-world-for-our-children-what-is-the-future/

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 Online Security & Children


Mobile technology used in everyday life has become the equal to, and in many cases has surpassed, the mobile technology that businesses are giving their employees for work purposes. This has brought unprecedented challenges for businesses as employees increasingly access work email and data from personal devices, and take the lead on demanding which technology they are provided with by their employer. The approach businesses take to resolving this issue will significantly influence their IT policies in the coming years.

‘consUmErIzaTIon’ of IT rEsoUrcEs BrInGs hEadachEs for BUsInEssBy Andrew Stillwell

With consumer smartphones usage growing rapidly, and with an equally rapid growth in the number of businesses providing smartphones for their employees, there are many ‘employed consumers’ who now use two smartphones in daily life. Similarity in the form and function of these devices has led to questions regarding the necessity of carrying both and, as a result, there is increasing pressure on company IT departments to either allow employees to use their personal devices for work purposes or to provide consumer-friendly devices.

In a recent GfK survey, 19% said that in addition to their personal mobile phone, they were provided with a mobile phone by their employer. Of this group, 72% agreed they would prefer to have one device that they use for personal and work purposes, with only 6% disagreeing. It is likely that both devices are able to fulfil the tasks required of the other – smartphones provided by

employers have cameras, play videos, and are able to download consumer applications (apps); similarly, work email can often be accessed on personal smartphone devices, company data can be downloaded, and company files opened – so why not just have one device?

As you are probably aware, this issue is more complicated than it sounds: there is significant polarization between the way ‘employed consumers’ would like to use their handsets and the device security and data management requirements for businesses. For this reason, as the pressure from employees to allow usage of personally-owned handsets for work purposes, or to be supplied with a range of consumer-friendly devices grows, so do the headaches for IT teams as they face unexpected and wide-ranging issues.

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 Consumerization of IT


This issue has become known as the ‘consumerization’ of company IT resources and is widely accepted as the biggest and most immediate issue for those supplying their employees with mobile solutions, and maybe even for those who are not. The way companies respond to these issues, and the policies and protocols that emerge as they do, will have a significant influence on working practices and IT resource requirements in the coming years.

The urgency of this issue is emphasized by the fact that to a certain extent, it is already too late – employees have been empowered by their ability to access work resources on their personal mobile devices through mobile browsers; and are accessing, saving, and sharing confidential data on personal devices and in public spaces to a degree that IT departments had not foreseen and were unprepared for. Indeed, 25% of employed people surveyed admitted using their personal mobile devices to access their work email, with a further 46% saying they wish their company would allow this. This is almost impossible to control, and is giving IT professionals significant policy issues.

There is little doubt what companies would prefer, and what is the most efficient solution – a known list of employees who have been provided with devices using a single OS, which contain uniform software and applications. This would make policy, support, legislation, and budgetary planning transparent,

straightforward, and relatively easy to manage. However, with the increasing number of options available, and the fact that it is now common for employees to have access to personal devices which are at least the equal of what they are provided for work (and to be using these for work purposes), this would be almost impossible to implement.

Therefore, realistic solutions involve either incorporating personally-owned mobile devices into IT systems, or providing and supporting a range of mobile devices which satisfy employee business and personal needs, or a combination of these policies. Don’t be surprised if you see a few more grey hairs appearing on the heads of your colleagues in IT!

‘Employed consumers’ know what they would prefer; 56% of those surveyed agreed they prefer their personal mobiles to their work mobiles, 51% agreed that the features and functionality of their personal mobile is much better than their work mobile (with only 16% disagreeing), and the majority of these only use their work mobile when there is no other option. But do they really know what they are asking for?

The future reality of personally-owned mobiles being incorporated into company IT is likely to be very different to what happens currently. If this becomes official policy, in order to satisfy the data security requirements of their clients, businesses will need their employees to hand over control of sections of their phone and to enable remote device management and a remote wipe facility. In addition to this, it is likely that in the near future, software which segments functions for work and personal purposes and does not allow data transfer between the two will be implemented. Also, businesses may insist on wiping all data from the phone of an employee who leaves. How many employees would be happy to hand over this level of control of a phone which they pay for themselves?

“25% of employed people surveyed admitted using their personal mobile devices to access their work email, with a further 46% saying they wish their company would allow this. ”

Equally, although businesses would have a small level of control over mobile devices as they would be used for work purposes, employees would undoubtedly expect support – the IT help desk would become the first stop for all related issues, and would spend much of their day fending off spurious enquiries.

The most likely option looks to be a move towards supporting a limited, but more diverse range of mobile devices than is currently the norm. This would help to satisfy a range of end user needs, but would also allow companies a realistic chance of having the resources to support and maintain them. As consumers become more attached to their mobile ecosystems, employees will want to work with their favored OS or with the apps which most suit their needs – this solution should provide a reasonable compromise between employer and employee.

What will become of personal device usage? In the short to medium-term, usage of personal devices to access work email and data will increase, and this is almost impossible to stop. However, this issue could be brought sharply into focus by high-profile cases of confidential or sensitive data being accidentally shared, lost, or passed on by an unwitting employee using their own device. This would lead to companies implementing more stringent policies, and enforcing increasingly severe penalties for any breach, in order to assure their clients they continue to meet data protection and security requirements.

The recent and continuing increase in company usage of tablets, and personal ownership of these devices, will only make this issue more acute. The potential for tablets to perform a wider range of PC-like functions, and the greater amount of data they will require and store to do this, extends this issue a long way beyond sensitive emails

and attachments. Future usage of tablets will need to be considered both when developing and implementing policy, and when deciding on the handsets which will best serve this policy.

What does the future hold? It is too early to say, and there are plenty of senior decision-makers out there asking themselves the same question. The most likely scenario is a move away from the simplicity that many IT departments have experienced in the past when providing one brand of handset which satisfies all employees, towards a more diverse, but tightly controlled portfolio. What is certain is that IT departments will need to take a lead and set parameters for the provision and usage of mobile devices before their end users become too comfortable with the current status quo. How long will it be before the same employees who are accessing company files on their personal devices realize that someone else is probably carrying sensitive information about them on their handset or tablet, and outrage ensues? When this does happen you can be sure it will be the employers who are facing the toughest questions!

Sources

The survey on consumerisation in was conducted by GfK in April 2011 in the UK. Over 900 respondents were asked about their current usage of work and personal mobile phones and work email accounts and the usage preference amongst those with employer-paid work phones.

In the short to medium-term, usage of personal devices to access work email and data will increase, and this is almost impossible to stop. however, this issue could be brought sharply into focus by high-profile cases of confidential or sensitive data being accidentally shared, lost, or passed on by an unwitting employee using their own device.

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 Consumerization of IT


Image copyright: H

elga Esteb / Shutterstock.com

Research is often presented in a similar way; we share nuggets of the ‘story’ and impactful findings but we don’t often share all the hard work that goes into making our research successful.

Qualitative researchers love to talk to our clients about our fieldwork methodologies, our outputs, our respondents, our samples, our timings, our modes of engagement, our deliverables - the list goes on. We very rarely talk about our analysis processes – how we do it, how it will add value, how we know it is robust, how we know it is objective. Analyzing our qualitative research findings is often the most intensive phase of our projects – it is

the crucial link to transform hours of fieldwork into meaningful insight. Often, more time is invested in analysis than in any other part of the research process – and rightly so. Most qualitative researchers would probably agree that it can be the most satisfying part of our role and yet curiously, it is the phase we talk about least.

The approach to analysis is what gives research the ‘X’ Factor. We explore why analysis is often neglected in research design and how we can ensure it is as much part of the research process as collecting the data.

Have you ever considered the similarities between TV talent shows and Qualitative research? No, well let’s think about this for a minute. What we don’t see is all the hard work - rehearsing with the musicians, the lighting, the costumes, the camera work - that goes into creating each performance. The other vital ingredient that makes a successful performance sparkle is the ‘X’ Factor – the intangible quality that some contestants have and others don’t. This has little to do with technical talent and everything to do with the contestants’ personal story, their experience and their character. As viewers of the show, we are presented with an edited version of each contestant, typically showcased in a two minute song, briefly introduced with their personal story.

analysIs: whaT GIVEs qUalITaTIVE rEsEarch ThE X facTor?By Emma Roberts

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 Qualitative Research


Analysis: the elephant in the roomThere are a few reasons why this crucial part of our methodology is neglected when qualitative researchers talk to clients about what we offer. Firstly, fieldwork approaches are often considered to be the ‘sexy’ part of our methodology, the part of our work where we engage and immerse ourselves (and often our clients) in the lives of consumers - fieldwork attracts the spotlight! Secondly, we assume that our clients know how we carry out qualitative analysis and as a result we assume that they are not interested. Thirdly, because it is difficult! Explaining the methods we use to ensure that our qualitative research is robust, objective and truly adds value is tricky and when you are working across multiple and diverse international markets, it becomes even more challenging. As new qualitative methods such as using social media and online communities become more mainstream, these

analysis processes will become increasingly complex.Our qualitative research projects lead to reams of transcripts, videos, vox pops, online discussions and other outputs. At first glance, making sense of this can appear a very daunting task. In our experience, every researcher (and client) approaches a fresh research project with a set of assumptions, values and beliefs. Some of them are very much at the forefront of our minds and some are buried away at the back, making it difficult to acknowledge them, and therefore even more difficult to challenge them. Some of these assumptions are helpful and others are not. But how do we know the difference?

Minimizing bias and maximizing judgement Below are some thoughts on how we can ensure that analysis limits bias and helps us to feel more able to openly discuss our approach and thinking when trying to ‘sell’ our research. Ideally, the analysis process will allow space to ensure that judgement is maximized and biased assumptions are minimized. Some of our methods for minimizing bias and maximizing judgement are described below.

Convene an ‘assumption amnesty’ - before the fieldwork takes place, where all researchers (and clients) share and log their assumptions ahead of the research process. This log should be revisited before, during and after the analysis phase. Assumptions should be challenged and can be translated into hypotheses where appropriate. The entire process of qualitative research can support businesses on transformational journeys, simply by posing

The entire process of qualitative research can support businesses on transformational journeys, simply by posing challenging questions and tackling underlying assumptions. This is where qualitative research works best.

challenging questions and tackling underlying assumptions. This is where qualitative research works best.Analyze in diverse teams – different academic and professional backgrounds will help with the process of challenging assumptions and will also bring new ideas to the table.

Don’t ignore hunches - as described above, judgement and bias are often confused. Successful analysts of qualitative research will be comfortable when applying their judgement. Great research is about attention to detail, expertise, impartiality and rigour but it’s also about resourcefulness, creativity, new ideas and passion. Analysis in qualitative research is a process of making sense of complexity. Having an idea of ‘sense’ is based on previous experiences and judgements, so it is important to acknowledge this.

Be reluctant to reduce - we sometimes think that applying a ‘model’ to our research somehow validates it, removes it from judgements, and makes it more objective. It could just as easily be argued that the opposite is the case. There is a temptation within any type of research to reduce analysis processes to a framework or model. Shoehorning primary fieldwork into predetermined models actually reinforces – and in some cases validates - our predefined assumptions and values, some of which we should be rejecting. Models and frameworks work best when they are used to ensure consistency and quality, for example across multiple markets. But they should be used with caution when they assume particular value sets or take things for granted.

Making sense of the complexity Therefore, in a similar way to the ‘hard work’ (hours of rehearsal, the singing lessons, the camera tricks etc.) overlooked in a contestant’s X Factor story, analysis is often the elephant in the room when it comes to talking about qualitative research methodologies. Especially for non-researchers (including many clients) there currently remains an air of mystique around the analysis process.

Qualitative research should be loaded with creativity and judgment while still retaining objectivity. To tread this line successfully, it is necessary to retain objectivity by owning up to the assumptions and letting them go while being comfortable with drawing on previous experiences, using our judgement to make ‘sense’ out of the complexity. The key to successful analysis of qualitative data is not always about applying grandiose theories, but about making sure that analysis models are applicable, appropriate and challenge any preconceived assumptions.

While analysis remains a topic to be brushed over very quickly during most discussions with clients, GfK TechQual wants to bring about change, making analysis a real talking point. With an approach that helps to maximize objectivity and minimize bias, analysis can lose its air of mystique and can become something we – and our clients - feel confident to talk about.

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 Qualitative Research


Keeping you up to date with some of the activities that have been keeping us busy in recent months, as well as letting you know about new initiatives and across the company.

InsIdE GfK

GfK has appointed Rogerio Monteiro as managing director of GfK Business & Technology in North America. In this role, Monterio will lead research initiatives and oversee senior leadership, while fuelling the growth and development of GfK’s expanding technology client base.

“Rogerio’s diverse marketing and research background is ideally suited to help our business and technology clients meet

the challenges of better understanding their customers in a continually competitive landscape,” said David Krajicek, Co-President, GfK Custom Research North America. “He brings a unique skill set ranging from product tests to in-market

advertising tracking, and carries exemplary leadership qualities that will continue to advance our innovative research tools and services.”

Monteiro joins GfK from its sister organization, GfK Brazil, where he managed a broad client portfolio focused on the chemical, consumer goods, finance and automotive industries. In 2008, Monteiro launched GfK Brazil’s Automotive Business Unit, growing the business exponentially as a champion for syndicated research.

Prior to his role at GfK Brazil, Monteiro was a commercial business director for a market research supplier and has worked with many of the leading brands and companies, including Y&R, GM and Kraft, in the Brazilian market. Fluent in both Portuguese and English, Monteiro holds a degree in Marketing from the Universidade Paulista (UNIP) and a Master’s in Marketing from New York University.

GfK Names Rogerio Monteiro Managing Director of Business and Technology Sector

USA: mobile approach for measuring media usage

In August, GfK MRI helped launch a project for measuring media consumption: the smartphone- based survey, USA TouchPoints.

This supplements GfK MRI’s “Survey of the American Consumer”, a major national survey for which data is collected via face-to-face interviews with an area probability sample of 26,000 adults. For USA TouchPoints, Media Behavior Institute (MBI), the market research company leading the project, equips 2,000 US respondents of the Survey of the American Consumer with smartphones on which a special survey app is installed. Every half an hour, a short survey pops up asking the consumers questions such as “Which media have you used in the last 30 minutes?”, “What, if anything, were you doing at the same time?” and “Who were you with?” The app also asks for the mood the consumers are in. The data will show the daily routines of specific target groups in the context of their usage of 550 product categories and 6,500 brands. This enables advertisers to design a more target-oriented and creative approach for reaching consumers in the right place, at the right time and in the right mood. The fi rst fi ndings will be available in early 2012. In order to bring the smartphone survey to life, GfK MRI and Nielsen each acquired a 25% interest in MBI, the US licensor of TouchPoints, a methodology launched by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) in the UK. MBI is headquartered in New York, USA.

In mid-June, the GfK Eurisko Media Monitor (EMM) won this year’s Confindustria prize for innovation in the field of information, communication and media technology.

The multimedia, consumer-centric single source survey EMM has been the benchmark for multimedia planning in Italy since 2006. It supplies the national data currencies for TV, radio, internet, cinema and print advertising, as

well as advertising via direct mail, on billboards and in retail outlets and other places such as railway stations. The EMM is based on a rolling sample of 7,000 individuals aged 14 and above, and is conducted across seven separate survey waves of 28 days each year.

Panel participants wear the EMM meter which uses sound-matching technology to detect TV and Radio exposure in and out of home. Using another electronic device, the Eurisko Dialogatore, they also record their (other) media usage and consumption habits. The Dialogatore, in other contexts, can be used not just to answer questionnaires but also to scan barcodes, take photographs, record videos and use the same special GfK-patented sound recording procedure for TV and radio adopted by the meter.

The data obtained is transferred in real time to GfK via GPRS. Confindustria is Italy’s largest employers’ association. Since 2010, it has presented annual awards for innovation to companies that are responding to the convergence of information technology, telecommunications, communication and content by developing forward-looking solutions.

Italy: GfK survey wins prize for innovation

GfK TechTalk - November 2011 Inside GfK

GLOBAL

Anette Bendzko

Tel: +1 847 371 1585

Email: [email protected]

Publisher:GfK Ludgate House245 Blackfriars RoadLondon SE1 9ULwww.gfk.com

Contact:The TechTalk teamTel: +44-20-7890 [email protected]: As left

GfK Head Office:Nordwestring 10190419 NurembergGermany

NORTH AMERICA

Rogerio Monteiro

Tel: +1 609 683 6108


LATIN AMERICA

Cynthia Vieira

Tel: +55 112 174 3854


CHINA

Frank Landeck

Tel: +86 1350 1250 781


SPAIN

Emilio González Villafranca

Tel: +34 915 919 940


UNITEd KINGdOM

Colin Strong

Tel: +44 207 890 9857


GERMANY

Robert Wucher

Tel: +49 911 395 2523


ITALY

Claudio Peretti

Tel: +39 393 965 4657


JAPAN

Junichi Segawa

Tel: +81 3 63045820


FRANCE

François Crocquet

Tel: +33 01 47 14 44 93

Email: Franç[email protected]

Contact us

TechTalk - The UX Edition

Documents

Transcript of TechTalk - The UX Edition