Communities Are Simply Conversations

Brands are now using online communities. But there’s still a lot of misunderstanding about how simple a research community can be.

imgres

Editor’s Note: This post is part of our Big Ideas Series, a column highlighting the innovative thinking and thought leadership at IIeX events around the world. Stephen Thompson will be speaking at IIeX North America (June 13-15 in Atlanta). If you liked this article, you’ll LOVE IIeX NA. Click here to learn more.

By Stephen Thompson, Executive Vice President, Ramius | Recollective

Almost two decades ago, the marketing industry was starting to buzz about something new, something huge.

Brands were waking up to a new millennium in which consumers had started to use a rapidly-expanding global internet to connect and talk to each other about them and their products. These were conversations that the brand hadn’t initiated and often wasn’t included in. Most alarmingly, consumers weren’t always being nice. In fact, the anonymity of the internet meant that people were more secure and confident than ever to be brutally honest!

Fast forward to the present day, past some spectacular social media fails and a veritable library of books on the subject (some like Outside Innovation and Cluetrain Manifesto are worth a read). Brands are now using online communities in a myriad of different ways to engage their consumers, but it’s always with the same purpose: to be part of the conversation. Because when connected, you can explain, influence, strengthen and learn about your consumers.

As I now observe and work in the marketing research industry, there are some obvious parallels. For the past few years in GRIT reports and at conferences, there’s been a similar growing buzz about online community technology and how it can be used to power new and exciting research. While the latest tech often includes features specific to researchers’ unique needs, qualitative research shares the same purpose of engaging people in conversation that is fundamental to traditional marketing communities. So on the face of it, the fit is a natural one.

Yet I talk to researchers every week and there’s still a lot of misunderstanding about how simple a research community can be. Many share concerns about a preconceived notion of size and complexity, about how much effort is required to moderate it and how to manage the data. Whatever the cause of those concerns, there are five misunderstandings about online research communities that we need to debunk:

  • They don’t need to have a large number of people
  • They can be any duration (including quick 3 day “popup” communities)
  • They don’t have to socialize every contribution a participant makes; it can be (and should be) selective
  • They can be much more than a discussion forum or bulletin board
  • They don’t need to be “always on”

What’s important to remember is that community = conversations. All you really need are two people: a moderator and a participant. Everything after that can be tailored to your research needs, experience and resources.

It’s great if participant responses are socialized to the community members, but sometimes that isn’t appropriate. Likewise, it’s great if you can maintain those conversations on an ongoing basis, but often they’re for a specific purpose and have a natural end. So when you consider using today’s online research community platforms, remember that they’re flexible of purpose because the best insight communities strip right down to the heart of what a community is all about: simple conversations. Kendall Nash from Burke and I will talk more about this in our presentation “Chameleon Communities” at IIeX – we hope to see you there!

customer insightsresearch communitiesrespondent

Comments

Comments are moderated to ensure respect towards the author and to prevent spam or self-promotion. Your comment may be edited, rejected, or approved based on these criteria. By commenting, you accept these terms and take responsibility for your contributions.

Stephen Thompson

Stephen Thompson

1 article

author bio

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, data, and methodologies expressed above are those of the contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect or represent the official policies, positions, or beliefs of Greenbook.

ARTICLES

When Easy Becomes Empty: The Frictionless Feedback Fallacy
Research Methodologies

When Easy Becomes Empty: The Frictionless Feedback Fallacy

Making surveys easier doesn’t always improve insights. Discover why thoughtful feedback design balances convenience with meaningful, reflective respon...

Tarik Covington

Tarik Covington

Founder & Chief Strategist at Covariate. Human-Centered Insights

The Always-on Agency: How to Survive the Shift to Intelligence-Native Organizations
Research Methodologies

The Always-on Agency: How to Survive the Shift to Intelligence-Native Organizations

The insight agency model is under pressure. In an always-on world, success depends on becoming a decision partner, not just a supplier of research pro...

Hannah Mann

Hannah Mann

Founding Partner at Day One Strategy

The Ambiguity of Frequent Survey Participation: Is “Hyperactivity” a Signal of Professional Fraud?
Research Methodologies

The Ambiguity of Frequent Survey Participation: Is “Hyperactivity” a Signal of Professional Fraud?

Learn how to identify engaged respondents, detect bad actors, and improve data quality for more reliable research outcomes.

Sebastian Berger

Sebastian Berger

Head of Science ReDem at Rep Data

Ethical by Design: The Questions Every Mixed-Method Research Team Should Be Asking
Research Methodologies

Ethical by Design: The Questions Every Mixed-Method Research Team Should Be Asking

Explore the ethical questions researchers should ask when combining surveys, interviews, AI analysis, synthetic data, and behavioral tracking in mixed...

Ashley Shedlock

Ashley Shedlock

Content Producer at Greenbook

Sign Up for
Updates

Get content that matters, written by top insights industry experts, delivered right to your inbox.

67k+ subscribers