Blogging in Review

As my school years winds to the end, it is time to review how my personal branding project went. At first I was not into the whole blogging thing, but after jumping in and writing about something I love, I have seen the huge benefits of blogging. 

 Since this is a blog about market research, of course I had Google Analytics on my blog to see how effective my blog was. Below are some screen shots of my analytics. 

This is a shot that shows the general information- it shows I have had 167 visits to my website between January and April. Of those, 122 were unique visitors. The average time on the blog was 2 min and 33 seconds. I was really pleased to read this statistic because it showed that people were at the very least reading one post I had on my blog. 

In the image above it shows the bounce rate at 72.46%. For not having many pages for my viewers to go to, I think this is a great rate. 


While all these stats look fantastics, once I looked more in depth, I saw that there were lots of visitors who didn't spend anytime on the blog and left just as soon as they go there. This fact makes the first statistics seem like more people are going to my blog than actually are. Knowing this kept my head in the game and determined to try and make better posts that were more appealing to the viewers. Hopefully time will show that this tactic has worked. 


I have loved this experience and will continue to work on this blog as well as use twitter (@MegCril) to make connections with other market researchers to learn more about this evolving industry. I have learned about the newer tools that market researchers are using to gain data about consumers online. 


So stay posted for even more tools that are being used as well as my thoughts on different types of industry news!

Proof that Sex and Money go hand in hand

      FlowingData recently did a study of people who are looking for casual sex and how much income they make. They wanted to see if there was any correlation between the two factors.

  OkCupid, who ran the research stated, "money seems to be a more powerful influence on sex drive than culture or even religion". While this report doesn't prove that money will get you sex, it just shows that it is a motivator of wanting/ looking for sex.

Some food for thought!

Students and Market Research

 

Cvent recently did an article about how business school kids are becoming huge fans of online market research tools. Their reasons as to why are the fact that online surveys can reach much more people, are cost effective compared to the old school way of paper and pen surveys as well as there is a higher response rate.

   I think a big place that Cvent missed as to reasons why students flock to this medium for research is that these students have grown up with technology. I think it is only natural for us to be most comfortable with technology and use that to gain insight into matters. I would venture that lots of students are more comfortable reaching out online than in person- just because this is what we are used to. Luckily the internet has allowed us to do research, in some ways better research because we are a technological generation. However there are the downsides to online market research still like Cvent discussed- not being able to reach every possible target market (ie people who aren't online and children). It also is minimizing our face to face interaction with the customers. I wonder just how important that face to face interaction is. How does it influence people's behaviors and answers to questions? Will the quality of information decrease because survey takers don't know the person who is "interviewing" them?

Market Research is DEAD!

  Ok, well market research isn't totally dead, but according to Martin Lindstrom market research will be changed forever with neuromarketing. In his latest book Buy-ology Linstrom shares the results of the most extensive neurological study ever done. 
   Instead of asking people what they think or asking them to share the reasons they purchase the way they do, Linstrom and his team watched the brain while asking people questions or showing them images. One of the most shocking revelations was the fact that the anti-smoking campaigns were actually working for the tobacco companies. Linstrom interviewed several smokers and asked them if the warning signs bothered them when they purchased cigarettes. One woman said that it did, however when they did a scan of her brain when she looked at the warning sign, a signal rang in the motivator area of the brain. It was doing the opposite of deterring her, it was motivating her to purchase that cigarette. While it is unknown as to why this happens it is a huge insight into the behaviors of consumers. It also answers the question of why more people aren't quitting smoking when they see those warning signs.
   Because of findings like these, Lindstrom believes current market research techniques will soon die and new ones like these (neuromarketing) will take over. While current market research techniques like focus groups and surveys have their flaws that need to be flushed out still, I think we are still a long way from actually being able to use neuromarketing as a research tool. For one it is incredibly expensive to use the machinery for tests. Second, neuromarketing is a great tool for the aftermath of a marketing campaign. It can show researchers what part of the brain is triggered by certain ads, however it will never be able to tell researchers what the consumer wants in the future. To find this information out, I think focus groups and surveys is the best way to do it!


   Where do you think market research will go? Will tMRIs become cheaper and allow more people access to using them? Will marketing start working on the neurological level- if so, how will they do that? Lots to come in the next few years of marketing and I'm excited to see!!

The pro's and con's to Trump's market research

   While this was research done as a joke there are things to learn from this video. First, face to face interviews can reveal a lot more than an online survey or over the phone interview. Seeing the facial reactions of people to questions can help researchers will analyzing the data. However, the downside to face to face interviews like the Trump was doing here is that people are biased when they are being video tapped or looking straight at the interviewer.
   We want to please others- its simply in our genetics. So, when someone is approached on the street like this they want to answer the questions the way they think the interviewer wants them to answer. They look for facial cues of the interviewer to help guide their questions. 
   So while there are some great things to face to face interviews, there are also some downsides that need to be taken into account when analyzing data!