Effectual fluff

18Feb10

Fluffy techniques

Useful qualitative research output has two defining features; depth and clarity. And perhaps surprisingly, this is where what might be perceived to be ‘fluffy’ research techniques come into their own. They’re an efficient way to get depth and clarity.

An example, asking the same question in two different ways, will help to explain what I mean.

Q: Does Brand X have an image problem?

There are 3 possible answers to this question; ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘I don’t know’. Some clarity yes, but not much depth there. None of these answers are very helpful in terms of understanding anything about the possible image problem.

Let’s ask the same question, but in another way:

Q: If Brand X came to life as a person, what kind of person would they be? What kind of music would they listen to? How would they take their coffee? etc.

I can understand that to someone who hasn’t had much experience with qualitative research, the above line of questioning may seem somewhat fluffy.

Allow me to de-fluff it.

The output

As noted, the second question is just another version of the first. But the answers will be quite different.

Asking the question using this ‘fluffy’ approach delivers answers in 3D. And then following up, down and sideways on the answers with ‘Why? Why? Why?’ (not literally, in essence) helps to build a rich, relatively holistic picture of Brand X’s image. Critically, it also provides a context for interpretation.

The above technique is called personification. It’s just one example of a fluffy technique: there are many more in the qualitative toolbox. When used appropriately, fluffy techniques really deliver the goods. Research participants love them: they’re fun and engaging and something a bit different. Researchers love them because they enable deeper understanding of attitudes and perceptions, and thus greater insight.

Effectual fluff. Neat huh?

(This was a post I originally wrote for Marketing Mag)