I'm totally bailing on you

Well, not exactly. I'm now blogging over at FreshMR as one of the contributors, so I suspect my need for this site has gone away.

http://www.freshmr.com/

However, if I find a juicy topic on which I simply must blog, but about which I cannot blog on my official corporate site, I am totally yours.

Much love,
e.

The new focus groups?

The New York Times published a piece last week about “new” approaches to qual research including collaging and journaling: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/business/media/30focus.html?_r=4&hp=&pagewanted=all

I have a couple of issues with the piece. First, these approaches aren’t new—I personally have been employing them since the mid-90s, and they've likely been in practice longer. I'm pretty sure that I wrote an internal white paper about this very same topic—up-and-coming qual approaches such as collaging and participatory design—in 1997.

Second, the “here’s why focus groups are bad” example that they cite is the New Coke launch from 1985.

It's disheartning that such an outdated piece is coming from The Times. And I'm becoming increasingly annoyed with all of the "focus groups are bad" griping. Yes, there are downsides to focus groups. And they can sometimes be a useful tool.

Rather than bash existing research tools to make our "new" tools look better by comparison, can't we just explore the new tool's strengths, weaknesses, and promise? If in your explanation of a new research approach, you use focus groups as a comparative foil, you have turned me off.

You lost me at "better than the New Coke focus groups"...

Social shopping enters the big leagues

Google Offers launched in Portland today, and of course I signed up right away. I'm not really a coupon gal, but there's something appealing about these online "coupon" services such as Groupon and LivingSocial. Maybe it's the fact that they seem to be appealing to slightly younger and hip-er clientele than typical coupon users. Maybe its because they're hooked into the online social media. If it's cool to use Facebook, it must be cool to use Groupon and then tell all of your Facebook friens about it, right?

For me, the proof shall be in the pudding: Which one will send me better deals -- deeper discounts on things that are actually of interest to me?

Part of me is rooting for the underdog(s). Google dominates in several categories now. I'd like to see the category-creators continue to do well, at least for the time being.

Now...where's my daily Google offer email?!

SXSWi pics

I finally downloaded some pics from my phone, including pictures from SXSWi. Here's a link in case you're interested in seeing my journey.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25768433@N02/sets/72157626570898560/

Terminology for game-related online/social interaction

We were having a lively debate at work last week about how to talk about these new "game" activities related to social media. Talking about "game theory" is clearly wrong, as there's something totally different related to game theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory.

We talked about "game layer" which was used at SXSW and TED by Seth Priebatsch. He also uses "Gamification" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification -- which I think trivializes the topic. The wikipedia definition for this seems close to what I'm after:

Gamification is the use of game play mechanics^[1] for non-game applications
(also known as "funware"),^[2] particularly consumer-oriented web and mobile sites, in order to encourage people to adopt the applications.

We hadn't talked "funware" and it seems even more trivial in its connotation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funware. The definition sounds close to what I'm thinking about:

Funware, a term coined by Gabe Zicherman,^{[1] [2] [3]} is the use of game mechanics in
non-game contexts to encourage desired user actions and generate customer loyalty. Funware typically employs game mechanics such as points, leaderboards, badges,
challenges and levels.

The functional term I've been using in my mind when thinking about this topic is use of "game mechanics" within the realm of social media. I think I'll stick with this for now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_mechanics

Game layer

Heading into a meeting today to pitch an idea for a white paper of sorts on the game layer -- what it means for technology companies, what it might mean for tech-focused research firms. Sorting through some ideas in my head now. I'll report back as to my plans soon...

SXSWi Day 3 - that's a wrap

Due to some scheduled focus groups on Monday, I had to depart SXSWi this afternoon. Before doing so, I caught a couple of sessions and had a chance to see Paul Reubens one more time. :-)

I'll be thinking about my experiences at "South by" for weeks to come. As I depart today, I'm thinking about...

social

gaming

tweeting

checking in

points

up leveling

badges

hero's quest

Star Wars

4sq

Ustream

Nick Jr.

Cartoon Network

Pee Wee

NYT

content developers

aggregators

BBQ brisket

Killer sushi

Glennztees

Hotel San Jose

The Continental

frog design

The Jiddler

#SXSWi

#MRX
#SXSW4japan

I hope I get a chance to head to SXSWi next year or some future year. Thanks Austin -- looking forward to seeing you again soon.

SXSWi Day 2

Wow. 12 hours of SXSWi festival madness, including 4 or 5 sessions, 1 movie, 2 meals and 1 party. Whew! Since it's spring forward night, I must make this brief. Here are a couple of takeaways:

• Gaming IS the new social. Yesterday I mentioned seeing a lot of gaming content, and that trend continued today. The conference keynote presentation was all about gaming and game theory driving interactive content in the 2010s. I find many aspects of this fascinating -- encouraging engagement (the games themselves), use of incentives (points, badges, stickers), up leveling (e.g., "super user" status), individual ownership (e.g., mayorships), collective ownership (e.g., "society" memberships). Along with all of this talk of game theory, I've been using Foursquare, which is a great example of social gaming. SXSW is a Foursquare hotbed -- everywhere you go, that place is an official location, and when you check in, you often receive bonus points and special badges. As someone who plays Foursquare in a non-Foursquare town, it's much more fun to play in a place that has Foursquare mania. I feel as though I am a living embodiment of the "gaming is the new social" mantra. As I head home, I need to figure out what this means for tech market research (whether as a research tool or as a subject matter to be researched). Stay tuned...


• SXSW = indie. The thread that seems to hold all 3 parts of the festival together -- interactive, film, music -- is that the creative works are being developed by independent artists. The more indie your project, the harder it was to scrape together the funds, the more SXSW cred you have. iPhone app developers working out of their basements; A-list actors Rainn Wilson and Ellen Page working for scale pay on their new indie flick SUPER; social media startups proud of their shunning tech titan suitors. While I really appreciate this independent spirit, I strongly suspect that all of these indie organizations don't have funds allocated for market research spending. Sigh.


• Paul Rubens rules SXSW. This really has nothing to do with technology or market research. But I was fortunate to be able to see a screening of "Pee Wee's Playhouse on Broadway" this afternoon, complete with post-show Q&A with Paul Rubens himself. I suppose Pee Wee is the ultimate "indie" artist -- doing for decades what he truly believes in, and once again being recognized and revered for it. Oh, and he tweets constantly, and even awarded me a special Pee Wee Foursquare badge when I checked in at the theater. Pee Wee is a social gamer...are you?

SXSWi Day 1

I felt I had more to say than I could accomplish 140 characters at a time, so I'm going long form. Being able to experience SXSWi is a huge treat, and I'm very appreciative that I was able to come. The event seems to have really exploded this year in terms of media coverage; it's always exciting to be in the epicenter of something with such buzz.

Here are some brief reflections on Day 1:

• Gaming is the new Social. Many people and companies here seem to think that gaming is where it's at and where we're all headed in great swarms. There are numerous sessions about gaming -- design and development, user testing, using game theory to make other activities more collaborative (and more popular). If we make something into a "game", folks will want to play and strive to win. If we could harness the power of this, we could creatively encourage people to tackle big world problems. Or just entice them to play the next version of Farmville and chat with their Facebook friends. Either way, it's fun, right?


• Geeks are now beyond cool -- the cool kids are splintering into groups of still cool and no-longer-cool. There something interesting going on here, a kind of a war between the true small-and-emerging startup wunderkinds (still cool), and the older established tech giants (perhaps no longer cool). The startups don't really want the tech giants coming to Austin and spoiling their alterna-tech party. And yet, the tech giants are heading here by the truckload. Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, Facebook...you name it, they're probably here. And it's making the startups mad. As I have to depart mid-festival on Sunday, I'm hoping to make it out of here before the Lord of the Flies energy reaching a tipping point.


• Everyone loves to make fun of focus groups. A couple of years ago, I presented a paper on employing a multidisciplinary approach (ethnography + market research) at an ethno conference, and caught a bit of flack for taking about silly MR at a conference filled with anthropologists. Today I sat in on a panel discussion with several user experience designers and one of them proceeded to attack focus groups as worthless (and to claim his approach as superior). This singularity of vision bothers me. All research approaches -- whether based on observation, interview or biofeedback -- have pros and cons. A good research practitioner will understand the pros and cons of various approaches, will have the savvy to select the most appropriate approach for the information need at hand, and will employ that approach to its best effect. I'd like to think that multidisciplinary thinking (and doing) is what we're moving toward. Can't we all just get along?