Happy Thanksgiving! I certainly have a lot to be thankful for: After a longer-than-usual dryspell, I have two new reports out in my new space. A case study on measuring engagement, and a data-driven report that looks at the differences between Customer Intelligence professionals who use dashboards (and scorecards) and those who don't.
Engagement is such a grand concept that relates to everything from purchasing and repeat usage to satisfaction and recommendation behavior. Customer intelligence professionals want to nail it down and measure their customers' level of engagement, but they have trouble nailing down a precise model to do so. We have a new case study that details how one organization, Channel 4, the UK media outlet, decoded engagement.
In the process of developing my new coverage area: marketing measurement, I'm working on a report to clarify the market mix modeling landscape and give customer intelligence professionals a sense of where they can turn for help with these complex projects.
We’re in the process of pondering a very important question in the industry today: what is the future of agencies? Agencies have played such a crucial role in helping companies market their products and services for more than a century. Names like McCann Erickson, Young & Rubicam, J. Walter Thompson, Ogilvy, and Saatchi & Saatchi (among others) are practically household names. There’s even a massively popular and critically acclaimed television show capturing life in the golden age of legendary agencies on Madison Avenue.
About a year ago, I took over the management of what has become Forrester's Customer Intelligence (CI) team. In doing so, I've had the pleasure of working with Senior Analyst John Lovett, who joined the team after our acquisition of Jupiter Research last year. Regretfully, I must tell you that John has decided that it's time for a change of pace.
Some recent events make me hopeful that major moves are afoot with enhancing panel quality.
Since the beginning of online surveys, there have been questions about how clean the online panels that enable them are. Questions abounded about representativeness, fraud, professional survey takers, inattentive survey takers and the like. The response from panel vendors has been that they have strong measures in place, and that the problems were overstated. Naysayers have claimed bad sample numbers that range from 20-30%. Buyer's of sample were largely in a "trust me" position, since most of the quality measures were in the hands of the panel vendor. Associations (such as ESOMAR and ARF), have come up with protocols that all good panels should follow, and many have.