The Danger of Mixing Quantitative and Qualitative Market Research in a B2B Environment

Quantitative research studies (e.g., surveys or medicalthe statistical (quantitative) results.
trials) and qualitative research studies (e.g., interviewsThis is particularly true in scientific communities
or focus groups) are powerful tools in the hands of a(where experimentation and research define the
trained marketer. Both forms of research are valid,discipline), and in manufacturing (where continuous
and both provide useful insight into a market space,improvement is defined in terms of deviation from
when properly conducted and appropriatelyspecifications), and in highly technical environments
interpreted. Yet they are as different as oil and(like IT), and in business environments (where well
water.quantified ideas are more likely to be funded).
Some of the differences between these processesIn your case, the stated purpose of the research
are obvious, even at first glance. Each approach haswas "to ensure the organization develops services
its unique methodologies, its inherent advantages, andthat meet the needs of its markets." And eventually,
its limitations. And neither approach works in allthese developments will need to be funded. So,
situations. Sometimes, marketers will begin theirwhen it comes time for you to present your
research with exploratory interviews, to uncoverstatistical and qualitative findings simultaneously, your
issues and develop theories, and then test thoseorganization's decision-makers may place undue
theories with broad, quantitative studies. At otheremphasis on the statistical results, and could even
times, empirical research may lead to creativedismiss the findings of the qualitative research.
concepts that must be tested in qualitative studies,Assumptions of Relative Homogeneity or Diversity
like focus groups. But what happens whenWhen we first presented the case study example,
quantitative and qualitative research projects runwe defined the internal managers group as "a highly
concurrently? Are there dangers in mixing these verysplintered but politically influential group." The
different processes?splintered nature of the group was also a concern of
The short answer is "yes."the chief executive, who hoped that a broad survey
Case Studyof the internal manager population would help "discern
Consider the case of a service organization with fivewhich of the influential splinter groups are
distinct stakeholder segments. Let's call themrepresentative of the majority opinion."
customers, prospective customers, delivery partners,But the decision to approach the internal managers
the general public, and internal managers. (Thegroup with a different methodology based on the
"internal managers group" does not refer to a specificfact that they are diverse inherently implies that the
group of people or a job function, but rather to all ofother groups are each homogeneous. And that is a
the mid-level managers throughout the organization,dangerous assumption.
who collectively control the content and quality ofIn fact, it is likely that one or more of the other
the services delivered.) Now imagine you're thestakeholder groups is as diverse and segmentable as
Marketing Director for that organization, and you'vethe internal manager group. But the decision to
been given the opportunity to hold focus groups withemploy a statistical survey with the internal managers
representative members of these five marketgroup (and not with the remaining groups) will bias
segments, to ensure the organization developsyou toward identifying and defining the subgroups of
services that meet the needs of its markets. One ofinternal managers, while treating the remaining groups
the segments, the internal managers - a highlyas individual but homogenous groups who simply
splintered but politically influential group - holds thehappen to share concerns.
power to define and deliver the very services yourFurthermore, you could easily end up comparing not
organization offers. And more than any of the otherfive, but six or seven or eight groups, several of
groups, the internal managers have the ear of yourwhich would be subgroups of the internal managers
executive leadership.group. This would give undue influence to the internal
Concerned about keeping peace with the internalmanagers segment in the final decision-making
managers, the chief executive approaches you andprocess.
asks that you give the internal managers a chance toRelative Importance of One Group Over Another
voice their opinions in a broader survey. A surveyUltimately, as marketing director in this fictitious
methodology will allow all members of this large,organization, you will need to recommend a course of
vocal, and diverse group to express their individualaction. That course of action should give relative
opinions. Moreover, the survey responses will enableweight to the needs and opinions of the groups
the organization's leadership to "segment and size thebased on their strategic priority to the organization.
internal manager market," and discern which of theWorking closely with your CEO and applying the
influential splinter groups are representative of thecorporate vision to your thinking, you may decide
majority opinion. Finally, the executive suggests thatthat one group - for example, "existing customers" -
the composite viewpoint of the internal managershould be the focus of your organization's energies.
group, as represented by quantitative analysis of theBut when you do set priorities, you will need to
survey, be weighed equally against the other fouranticipate a response from the "highly splintered but
segments' opinions, as expressed in individual focuspolitically influential group [that] holds the power to
groups.define and deliver the very services your organization
The executive's approach sounds reasonable enough,offers." And because you have allowed that group to
and even respectful of the science of eachhave its own empirical study, that group will be
methodology. Yet, it's fraught with perils.armed with statistics to reinforce their position.
Fundamentally Different ProcessesShow Me a Way Out!
Focus groups are designed to provide a window ofAll of these concerns can be abated (or at least
insight into issues that might exist more broadly in aminimized) by conducting the quantitative survey
population. Participants are encouraged to answerafter the focus groups are concluded. In this
open-ended questions and engage in unfiltered dialogtwo-tiered approach, your first study (focus groups)
about their perspectives. When professionallywould provide your organization with comparable
facilitated, focus groups allow the moderator toqualitative feedback from all five primary stakeholder
probe more deeply into comments made bygroups, and the second study (surveys) would give
participants. This provides deeper insight into theyour CEO the insight he needs to understand how
feelings and reactions of individual participants. Bylarge a percentage of the internal managers
contrast, quantitative studies (e.g., surveys) probepopulation holds each of the conflicting viewpoints.
less deeply on individual issues, but provide empiricalWhat's more, your organization will find three
data, which can be projected, with some validity,additional benefits to the two-tiered approach:
from the sample space to the entire population.- By running the focus groups before the survey
Mixed Media, Mixed Messagesstudy, you will have the opportunity to identify
One of the dangers of running quantitative and(narrow down) the most important issues and discuss
qualitative research concurrently, is the potential totheir weighting with your CEO. This will help you
confuse the processes. While artists may choose tophrase the questions for the empirical research, and
mix techniques (as a watercolorist would mixprovide a sense of "focus."
wet-on-dry and wet-on-wet techniques) to create a- Further, the questions you develop for the survey
beautiful and compelling piece of art, researchers whocould be equally applicable to several audiences. So,
run concurrent qualitative and quantitative studiesrather than gathering statistical feedback from
often end up with quite a mess. Readers of mixedinternal managers only, you could simultaneously
studies, being influenced by projections in thetarget multiple audience groups, including customers,
quantitative portion of the study, may try to extenddelivery partners, the general public, etc.
observations from the qualitative portion of the- Then, by comparing the survey responses from
study, and end up with invalid conclusions. In youreach group, you could clearly see the differences in
case, presenting the conclusions of your qualitativevalues and needs among your target audiences. This
focus group research in the same context as yourwould yield valuable "needs profiles" to which you
quantitative internal-manager-group survey resultscould map message platforms.
may encourage those who review the findings toBy separating the surveys from the focus groups,
project the opinions expressed in the qualitativeyou maintain the integrity of each process, deliver
studies (focus groups) statistically, to the largerclearer and more meaningful results, and enhance the
population, and this would be inappropriate. TheROI of your survey. In the end, your organization
resulting, inaccurate view of your market space willdevelops a more accurate understanding of its
skew the development of your services matrix.markets, your CEO gains valuable insight into his
Non-Comparable Weightingmanager-constituents, and you get to retain your
People who look at qualitative and quantitativesanity.
studies side-by-side tend to assign more weight toSee? It's good to be the Marketing Director!