Federal Marketing Experts Reveal Current Best Practices at Recent WIT Event

On Wednesday, April 7, Women in Technology (WIT) hosted a panel discussion between federal marketing experts on their current and potential best-practice marketing strategies and tactics.  Lisa Dezzutti, President of Market Connections, moderated the event, leveraging data from our recent 2009-10 Federal Media and Marketing Study to guide the discussion.

The panelists included:

• Erik Ayers, VP of Marketing at MorganFranklin
• Kathy Ditto, Director of Federal Marketing at Cisco Systems
• Chris Hamm, Director of Operations for GSA FEDSIM
• Mark Meudt, VP of Communications & Marketing at General Dynamics IT

Key insights from the panelists and the study included:

• In response to the economic downturn and the dramatic increase in spending brought on by the stimulus package, federal procurement cycles are getting longer, and disputes are both more frequent and more extensive.
  • Chris Hamm
• There's no one-size-fits-all approach that will prove effective in today's federal marketing environment.  Regardless of the product or service, marketers must be prepared to apply a mix of traditional and new media tactics, including:
  • Both “one-to-many” and “targeted, one-to-one” communications
  • Live and virtual events
  • Integrated PR, media relations and social media outreach
  • Kathy Ditto
• Marketers investing in trade shows should consider pre- and post-event tactics just as, if not more, important as their presence on the trade show floor:  integrate speaking engagements, sponsorships, and social media to maximize your brand's exposure and engagement with target audiences.
  • Mark Meudt
• In Market Connections' 2009-10 Annual Federal Media and Marketing Study, 46% of respondents indicated that they had attended a trade show or industry event in the past 12 months.   The top-five large trade shows attended are:
  1. FOSE (17%)
  2. GSA Expo (13%)
  3. AUSA (11%0
  4. Info Tech (6%)
  5. GOVSEC & US Law (6%)
• With the dramatic increase in the use of web sites and social media, marketers need to pay meticulous attention to their web presence, since these channels typically deliver the first impression prospects will receive when trying to learn about their products or services.
  • Erik Ayers
• Social media continues to gain traction in the federal space, with an increasing number of agencies issuing procurements for managing communications.  Setting policies and procedures, both inside and outside the federal government, continues to be a challenge for most organizations.  Some are choosing to manage social media as an integrated component of communications and PR programs, while others have chosen to create dedicated social media experts within their organizations.  Panelists provided a few insights from their organizations:
  • According to Erik Ayers, MorganFranklin's rule of thumb for their employees engaging in social media activities is that if the topic they're discussing is not covered on the web site, then it's not OK to discuss it in social media channels.
  • Cisco's Kathy Ditto advised guests to fully integrate social media activities and monitoring tools to learn more about customers and prospects as well as how content is being consumed. 
  • Because customers and prospects are looking for useful information, Chris Hamm advises that social media programs be focused on delivering value, not just promoting your company.
• Respondents to Market Connections' Federal Media and Marketing study indicated the top-five social networking sites used are:
  • Facebook (39%)
  • YouTube (33%)
  • LinkedIn (16%)
  • MySpace (12%)
  • Twitter (11%)

For more information on Market Connections' 2009-10 Federal Media and Marketing Study, contact Cathy Cromley via or 703-378-2025, ext. 108.  If you'd like to learn more about WIT's Sales & Marketing SIG, contact Patricia Mejia at Siteworx via or 703-657-1296.

Consider Two Approaches to Hybrid Telephone-Online Surveys

We've mentioned in previous articles the merits of online as well as telephone survey methodologies.  But what if you want a mix that gives you the best of both worlds?  We can successfully combine online and telephone methodologies in two unique ways, depending on the needs of your project.

Approach 1: Online survey with telephone follow-up calls.
This hybrid methodology allows for the broad reach and ease of conducting an online survey with the rich verbatim comments and probing you can only get with a live telephone interviewer.   In this approach, an invitation to an online survey is sent out to a broad range of respondents (for example, your entire customer base).  In the process of completing the online survey, respondents are flagged for a telephone follow-up based on their answers.  In the case of a customer satisfaction survey, we would generally flag respondents who indicated dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the products or services they were receiving. 

Advantages:  You can reach a much larger audience and have more data to work with.  Telephone calls, which are more expensive, can be targeted to those respondents whose input will be the most valuable.

Disadvantages: By flagging respondents in the process of an online survey, you may potential NOT flag a respondent who would have offered good insights.  Also, in asking respondents during the survey if they would be willing to participate in a brief telephone follow-up, you run the risk that they will refuse.

Approach 2: Telephone interview with an online component.
This hybrid methodology allows for the in-depth probing and richness of verbatim comments that traditionally come with telephone interviews, along with the ability to expose the respondent to multi-media stimuli online as part of the survey process.  Using this methodology, respondents are interviewed via telephone while they are at a computer with the ability to go out to websites and look at creative content. 

Advantages: Respondents can give real time ratings and comments to a live interviewer as they experience the multi-media content.  This type of creative testing has traditionally been done through in-person focus groups, but with this type of hybrid methodology, we can reach a more geographically diverse audience.

Disadvantages: Because respondents have to be able to access the internet, it is best to schedule these calls instead of simply dialing a person and asking them to participate.  This adds time and cost to the overall research timeline. 

Taking the Guesswork out of Messaging

Effectively marketing products or services can sometimes be tricky. Certainly, it starts with a smart positioning statement that will drive the development of the most compelling message to be used in sales and marketing efforts. But, even a slight change in the message phrasing, emphasis, or even alignment with the company's brand can make a big difference in how customers and prospects perceive the product or service.

Research can reveal if the market understands your product or service and if the messaging is effective. For example, one of Market Connections' clients launched a completely new service to its traditional core audience about a year ago. After sales for the service languished, they came to us to learn why. It was indeed perplexing, as our client and its closest two competitors are the top market leaders in terms of their traditional service offerings.

Our strategy was to conduct focus groups with members of the target audience. We initially presented the original positioning statement to participants, which tightly aligned the service with our client's strong and trusted brand in order to leverage its credibility. Clearly confused, the focus group participants didn't understand what the service was because it was so far outside the realm of our client's traditional offerings.

In the next round of focus groups, we presented positioning statements to focus group participants without the corporate brand name included, and every one of them instantly understood and liked the offering. We got the same result in the remaining focus groups, verifying that our client's strong and well-recognized brand was actually getting in the way of success. After significantly de-emphasizing the corporate brand and adjusting some of their messaging points in sales and marketing efforts, the service is now selling like hot cakes.

Qualitative research, such as focus groups and in-depth interviews, is typically the most effective method for testing positioning and messaging, as the open-ended format is effective for probing the "why" behind participants' preferences and opinions.

In the long run, conducting positioning and messaging research prior to a launch can save you time and money as well as help you avoid lost opportunities.

Research Firms Value Prior Studies

A research firm must gain a thorough understanding of the client's situation before developing and executing an effective market study. Clients who are experienced in research know the importance of providing as much background information as possible to their research provider. However, as they're conducting input meetings and forwarding brochures and other documents, they often neglect to gather and share results of prior relevant studies and analyses the organization has conducted.

Market Connections recommends that clients share relevant findings from previous qualitative, quantitative, and secondary research and analyses conducted by other research companies and by in-house resources.

Typically, this requires that our points of contact query others in the organization to learn if they have such research results or relevant data to share. However, it's worth the effort, as findings from prior relevant studies and internal analyses help enable us to:

• More quickly get up to speed about your offerings, markets, customers
• Avoid survey redundancies and/or establish benchmarks
• Maximize effectiveness of the survey instrument
• Compare new and prior research findings
• Provide more actionable and relevant recommendations to its client

For example, a client for whom we conduct customer satisfaction programs recently shared an analysis of sales and marketing data. Though their in-house quality team conducts these analyses every quarter for inclusion in a report for senior management, this was our first exposure to the data.

After reviewing the information, we recommended a few questions be added to the client's monthly customer satisfaction telephone survey to uncover the underlying reasons for the fairly low number of cost estimates and proposals being delivered by a particular business unit. The results revealed that some internal processes were in need of fine tuning, which the company quickly took action on. Though our client included the full set of additional questions in only one monthly survey, they permanently retained a specific question that enabled them to track results of the process improvements.

Reputable research firms are willing to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to have access to confidential information within the client organization that could potentially improve the value of their studies. So, when it comes to providing input to your research partner for your next study, we encourage you to talk to others in the organization and to think outside the box. Your extra efforts could result in new insights that enable meaningful performance improvements.

Kicking off a New Research Project

Research companies can typically submit a relevant and thoughtful proposal without delving into detailed background on the project or the intricate details on implementation strategies. But, once it's time to get underway on the research, they'll require a much deeper information dive at the kick-off meeting in order to structure an effective program.

In this initial session, key stakeholders from both your organization and the research firm should:

• Review everyone's roles and responsibilities as they relate to the project.
• Discuss the business problems and/or information gaps you're hoping the research program will address, including answers to questions such as:
  • What, specifically, signaled to you that there was a need for research in this area?
  • What are the key business questions to be answered by this research?
  • Who will be the primary users of the research data and in what ways do they assume they'll act on the results?
• Review and refine the program objectives as outlined in the research provider's proposal. (It sometimes becomes apparent in kick-off meetings that the project objectives have changed somewhat since the time the proposal was submitted. If so, the research firm may need to revise the cost estimate to align with the new project scope.)
• Review findings of relevant previous research.
• Review specific information relevant to the current program. Depending on the type of research study, this may include input on the target audiences, your products and/or services and their applications, the competitors and their relevant offerings, market dynamics and trends, and obstacles to success.
• Review the project timeline, including the typical length of each phase and if scheduling interdependencies exist between the research and other projects or decision making deadlines in the organization.
• Discuss available list options for reaching the study sample, including internal lists and databases subscriptions as well as potential list rental sources.
• Review immediate next steps for your team and the research provider.

Armed with this in-depth information, the research firm should be able to develop a strong first draft of the survey instrument - one that doesn't require an inordinate amount of editing on your end. Equally important, at the end of the kick-off meeting, you and your stakeholders should have a solid understanding of the project scope that can be accomplished within the budget, what to expect from the research process and final report, and the role that each of you will play to ensure project success.

The Online vs. Phone Debate

With online research software and panels (pre-screened individuals who agree to participate in surveys in exchange for an incentive) now commonly available, some mistakenly assume they should always conduct market studies via the internet to save time and money. While the online methodology is indeed viable and appropriate in some research situations, in other cases the telephone and in-person methods deliver more reliable and richer insights.

For example, online focus groups are now a viable alternative to in-person groups. The technology enables a real-time, dynamic discussion to develop between the researcher and the respondents, similar to what happens in a face-to-face focus group. With the online approach:

• Focus groups can be spread out over two or more days, enabling participants to engage in the discussion when it's most convenient to their schedules.
• Participants - which can be dispersed across the country or even internationally - are given access to a secure web site, where they reply to questions the research firm has developed and posted on the given topic.
• Participants can see what others are posting and respond accordingly. They can also respond to additional questions asked by the moderator as the discussion evolves.
• In addition to posting questions to the whole group, the moderator can ask individual questions of respondents in a private conversation.

However, even with access to respondent panels, it can be more difficult to achieve a truly random sample with internet studies. Furthermore, respondents may have a stronger tendency to rush through the survey in order to get the incentive, which means they may not clearly understand some questions or give careful thought to their answers. Both issues can raise concerns about the accuracy and quality of the data.

Telephone surveys, which are typically more expensive to implement than equivalent online surveys, also offer several key advantages - especially for somewhat complex studies. With the help of various automation tools, making random contact with a representative sample of the targeted population is fairly straightforward in many markets. Researchers have more control over the number of responses achieved, which is critical for completing a quantitative survey with statistical validity. Moreover, the telephone approach allows follow-up questions so respondents can clarify or expand upon their answers.

When helping clients decide between the two approaches, we assess numerous factors, including how long they can wait for the results, the research objectives and if they're best met with a quantitative or qualitative approach. We also consider the complexity and nature of the desired data, attributes of the target audience, availability of appropriate panels or email address lists, budget considerations, and so forth.

With further study, we can also help them assess the potential response and accuracy rates of both approaches. In fact, in some circumstances, Market Connections recommends a hybrid approach that incorporates both the phone and online methods in order to achieve a response rate that's high enough to represent the market as a whole.

Changing Times Nullify Market Assumptions

Few organizations have come through the past two years untouched by the recession. Even in the government market - one of the more stable sectors of the economy - spending is being more closely watched. Changes to the contracting process mean that established relationships with agencies are not a guarantee of future business. Equally important, competitive landscapes are in flux, as many companies struggling in their core commercial markets vie for a presence in more lucrative government markets.

For some, these new dynamics pose an even greater need for replacing outdated assumptions with accurate and current business intelligence that can drive smarter decision-making.

Market Connections recently completed an Attitude, Awareness and Usage (AA&U) study in which we asked our client's federal audiences how they perceived the company and its competitors. Interestingly, our client was unaware that it was competing against the company that respondents most strongly perceived as its competitor.

In fact, this competitor had successfully established a reputation for highly skilled technical personnel and innovative solutions within our client's core target market. Furthermore, the research found that the audience perceived these two attributes as more important than almost all others when selecting a contractor.

In addition to identifying two serious competitors that company executives had previously discounted, the study revealed that our client identified its own strengths very differently than how the market identified them. The study results gave our client an accurate picture of:

• the competitive environment
• the vendor attributes that are most important to the market, and how they are perceived by the market on those attributes
• the priorities most important to their target market
• the channels and media most preferred by their target market

Our client is using the findings to develop new marketing, business development, and client engagement strategies that will more effectively discriminate them from competitors. So, if you think times are too lean to spend money on market research, think again. It could be the smartest investment your organization makes as it prepares plans for improving performance in 2010.

Structuring for Success

Many government contractors are currently reacting to seismic transitions in the federal government's priorities and contracting processes. While many realize they may need to make structural changes in order to better align with these market dynamics, some need help identifying, validating, and prioritizing those changes. That's where market research comes in.

Findings from a study we recently completed for a federal IT solutions provider illustrate our point. The client currently has six independent business units - each with its own management, business development personnel, marketing campaigns, and so forth. The leaders of each unit rarely interact or collaborate on customer opportunities.

Market Connections has conducted an annual market perception study for this client for four years. This year we uncovered a major change in the roles and technology responsibilities of their target audiences. Previously, various client contacts were each responsible for only one technology area - a key reason the company had segmented its business units by technology area. However, the research found that due to technology convergence, strained agency budgets, restructured departments, and other factors, each decision-maker was now responsible for multiple products and services that overlapped more than one of our client's business units.

For at least the two business units where this trend was most pronounced, the company is restructuring to offer a consolidated 'account' approach so that customers don't have to interact with more than one point of contact. In addition, the company plans to implement a sales enablement program that will train its business development people to cross-sell their technologies much more effectively. The research findings offered similar insights into other changes the company can make in order to maximize competitiveness as the market continues to evolve.

Before making structural changes in an attempt to improve the market relevance of your organization, ensure you truly know what those changes should be. If you'd like to learn more about how the right research program can deliver this knowledge, give us a call at Market Connections.

Smart Overseas Research Accommodates the Culture

Having conducted research on six continents, we at Market Connections often advise our clients to understand and appreciate the cultural differences that may affect acceptance of their offerings and value propositions. However, it is equally important that we design and conduct the actual research in a culturally sensitive way.

Knowing What Questions NOT To Ask

Most of the U.S.-based research firms that are qualified to conduct international studies have proven partnerships with vendors in local overseas markets who can offer relevant knowledgeable guidance. Market Connections' overseas vendors provide practical advice on a wide range of considerations relevant to both our business-to-business and business-to-government studies, including pointing out certain topics that should be avoided in a given culture. For example, some governments might be suspicious of questions that link to sensitive political or social issues, while in other cultures it might be offensive to ask about age or finances.

Selecting the Most Effective Methodology

Numerous issues play into selecting the most effective single or hybrid methodology for an overseas study. If the research involves multiple countries that have similar socio-economic levels, it may be possible to adhere to one methodology, which is optimal when comparing results. However, not all countries are alike, and forcing an unsuitable method on the market would lower the quality of the results, if indeed anyone even completed the survey.

The country's communications infrastructure must also be considered. Some countries have higher internet penetration or more reliable telephone networks than others. Equally important, the willingness of the target audience to complete a survey by phone, or online, or in-person, varies along cultural lines.

For example, in Iraq, even if the interviewer has the capacity to conduct computer-aided telephone interviews, individuals are not likely to answer questions over the phone with a stranger. Conversely, telephone surveys work well in Japan, but researchers see a precipitous drop in cooperation if they extend beyond 20 minutes.

Meeting the Highest Translation Standards

For multilingual studies, proper translation is crucial to respondent comprehension of the survey and thus the quality of the data received. Market Connections ensures our translated surveys are thoroughly reviewed by qualified native speakers that are well connected with current language usage in the target market. This ensures the spirit as well as the letter of the translation is accurately reflected.

These native speakers also help ensure appropriate survey instructions and scales. For example, when considering a Spanish-language agreement scale, it is better to use the term “completely agree” rather than "strongly agree.” Even though the term translates literally between Spanish and English, it comes across as awkward when read in Spanish.

Translation can also affect the survey length, which must be considered during the design phase. For example, a survey timed at 15 minutes in English could take nearly 20 minutes in Japanese.

These are just some of the many issues to consider when embarking on an overseas research study. Look to your qualified research partner to guide the way.

Validating Qualitative Research

Debate continues among academics and research practitioners over the "validity" of qualitative research. Some believe that quantitative research is the only means of achieving valid market data, while qualitative methods - such as in-depth interviews, focus groups and the like - are overly subjective and inconsistently applied.

However, we at Market Connections believe that, if conducted correctly, qualitative studies do indeed provide value if it's understood upfront what they're meant to achieve. To bring some clarity to the quantitative vs. qualitative debate, we've answered some common questions below. Next month, Part 2 of this article will explore best practices for executing qualitative studies.

How exactly will I benefit from qualitative research?

Qualitative interviewing digs deeper into a question than a quantitative survey. It not only identifies the customers' relevant needs and problems, but also uncovers why those issues are important to their success. For example, depending on the research goal, that deeper understanding will help to refine positioning, increase satisfaction, or formulate more compelling value propositions and marketing messages.

Can we consider qualitative research to be statistically valid?

Not statistically valid - this is why, depending on the type of the study, research firms will often propose a follow-up survey to quantify the findings from the initial qualitative study. But, that being said, qualitative research on its own can be valid in terms of gaining new insights into the issues and concerns that are common to the target audience.

Why don't I just skip the qualitative research and put my money into a survey instead? Can't a survey get me the answers I need anyway?

If you already know from recent previous research what your audience's needs, challenges and preferences are, then perhaps you could skip the qualitative phase. However, if just do a quantitative survey of an audience you don't yet adequately understand, your business intelligence is at risk.

Specifically, the questionnaire might not reflect or probe all the relevant issues that matter to your buyers and influencers, resulting in an incomplete or inaccurate representation of the market and how to best approach it. In that sense, even if your survey were to yield valid results from a statistical standpoint, it would not provide all the information needed to make sound business decisions.

In conclusion, while qualitative research in and of itself may not yield statistically valid results, it does provide meaningful insights that help you better understand your target audience. And, it can be an important ingredient to the design and outcome of a more robust and statistically valid quantitative research effort.

Check out the February issue of Research IT for Part 2 of this article to learn some of the best practices for executing qualitative studies.

Best Practices for Focus Groups and IDIs

Last month, we brought some clarity to the research methodology debate by providing further insights into the purpose and value of qualitative studies such as focus groups and in-depth interviews. However, to maximize the results of qualitative studies - as well as any corrective actions they drive - experienced research firms incorporate these best practices:

Use an experienced and impartial moderator

The moderator, who must be skilled in proper interviewing techniques, cannot attempt to sway participants in a particular direction. Rather, to garner useful insights, he or she must elicit as complete a picture of the situation as possible. A moderator from an independent market research firm is strongly recommended over the client leading the session in order to maximize objectivity. If necessary, he or she will know when and how to occasionally play devil's advocate in order to gain a deeper understanding of the participants' perspectives and why they matter.

Design the discussion guide in a fair and value-neutral way

Experienced researchers know how to order questions to minimize biases as well as probe for unaided opinions before eliciting feedback on specific concepts or messages. It's important to word questions to ensure they are not leading, as well as structure the guide to allow sufficient time to explore and probe on any unanticipated issues that may arise. Best practices also call for the client to be involved in the review of the script draft to help identity and refine any subtle concerns that an outside research firm wouldn't know.

Assure confidentiality

In-depth interview participants tend to open up more when they know the results will be reported in aggregate only - that is, their individual answers will not be shared with client unless the participant requests it. This is especially the case with sensitive subject matters and/or with high level or hard-to-reach professionals.

Talk to the right number of people.

Of course, interview participants face differing challenges and opportunities. By conducting the right number of focus groups or IDIs, the client will have richer insights around more issues that could be important to improved decision-making. Keep in mind that, unlike quantitative studies, qualitative research is not a numbers game. In fact, too many IDIs or focus groups can lead to diminishing returns, as the same issues often surface again and again. A research firm experienced in your market will recommend the right qualitative methodology and number of sessions based on the program's objectives as well as the variety and location of research targets.

One Strategy Doesn't Always Fit all Markets

Some government contractors mistakenly assume that their winning go-to-market strategy in one sector will perform equally well in another. For example, a prospect recently shared his company would soon launch a new set of solutions for defense agencies - an audience they had never really served. Based on their success in federal civilian and commercial sector markets, management felt they knew which strengths to leverage when they targeted the defense market.

That's certainly understandable. After all, a cardinal rule of selling is to know and lead with your strengths. However, it's important to not overlook another adage - know and provide what your customer wants.

Our experience providing research to a wide variety of government contractors has clearly taught us that, depending on the product, service, or solution being offered, there can be significant differences between defense, civilian, state and local, and commercial markets in terms of:

• How the agencies define their mission, and by extension, the priorities driving the need for the solution
• The way they define their needs
• How they go through the vendor or solution selection process - who is involved, vendor characteristics that are most important, length of the decision-making cycle

Market Connections recently worked with a design solution company, who came to us for a better understanding of how to market their highly successful commercial sector products to the “public sector,” a category in which they into which they lumped federal, state, and local markets. During our exploratory research with decision makers who buy and use design software, we found that the evaluation and selection process was quite different between federal and state-and-local markets.

For example, federal buyers were much more concerned with being able to customize the solution and integrate the existing design data they currently had. Conversely, state and local personnel were significantly more concerned with the cost of the application and the level of support they would receive when deploying it. Both segments had highly favorable perceptions of the company and its design solution. However, the company quickly recognized it would need to segment sales and marketing messages by market sector.

And, the differences don't just impact messaging. In recent study for another client, we found that one segment of technology decision-makers in the defense market placed significantly greater value on conferences, trade shows and topic-specific events than their civilian counterparts. Conversely, civilian respondents placed greater emphasis on information from contractors, trade press, and industry associations.

Clearly, long-term success isn't just about selling your strengths. It's also about understanding how to prioritize and leverage your strengths to meet each market's needs. And, that understanding comes from market research.