One of the perennial questions that researchers are asked is: “What do you do that’s new?” I think the insight room at the Marketing Week Live surely answered this. It seems a heck a lot - in the digital sphere - with new panels, AI, VR and mobile running the show with some incredibly technical but intuitive solutions. 

​

To be frank, it felt rather odd to be the only exhibitors talking about market research and championing face to face. But perhaps it’s not surprising - it’s clearly nothing new. But for all the impressive technology, it feels unusual to have such a dominant focus on research methods where you don’t really meet anyone.

​

The snippets of stage presentations I saw appeared to be grappling with this issue; ‘we need to speak to humans, not cookies’ read one headline - and questions being asked as to whether anyone else has an issue with the in-consistency of self-reported responses with ‘users unable to actually articulate why they did/didn’t like something.’

​

Has the power of seduction of digital managed to banish the notion of qualitative research from people’s minds? Or perhaps it’s just not a topic that’s discussed at these shows? I get it, it’s unfashionable. But it’s fascinating how committed we seem be to the relentless promotion of convenience and connectedness at the cost of true audience understanding. Now it seems, we’re even looking for more digital solutions to mitigate the issue of the isolation that is inherent within it.

​

I say ‘connectedness’ - as it’s a word that’s often used alongside digital, but I’d draw the line at connected. I’d challenge whether we can properly ‘connect’ through digital methods at all. I think we can make contact, but surely making a true connection requires a level of empathy and understanding that can only be achieved through actually meeting someone and talking to them.

​

We all know how much who we are becomes distorted in the digital world - consciously and unconsciously. We’ve seen the studies on dwindling attention spans and how our cognitive processes completely change when answering or doing something online. And we don’t need behavioural economics to tell us that completing a week-night 'participant task' just becomes a chore and automatic - something akin to doing the washing.

​

Of course, having used many digital tools that both 'show' and 'tell' over the years, I’m well aware of their value. I know it’s ‘horses for courses’ and we should use all approaches accordingly. ‘Method neutral’, as big agencies like to quip. However, if Olympia London is any indicator - it seems that we might be in danger of losing genuine connections with audiences in a digitally driven quest for speed and accessibility.  

​

I’d like to hope that next year people will be thinking: 'What are the new ways of doing qualitative research brilliantly?' or even; 'How can we make better connections with people in our digital world?'

​

Having said this, there are some ‘new’, and inspiring ideas based on traditional approaches that are bringing fresh perspectives. Numerous start-ups are embracing the true craft of understanding real people. Common-sense approaches that amplify the integrity in doing great research. It’s both refreshing and exciting. And I’m sure it’s why most of us got into the business of doing this. It’s great to see that the importance of authentic contact isn’t being forgotten after all. We'll certainly be championing it until the next show. 

​