Transportation Client Satisfaction Case Study

This blog post is a summary of a recent project completed by Research & Marketing Strategies, Inc. (RMS).

Background: A school transportation organization recently partnered with Research & Marketing Strategies, Inc. (RMS) to conduct sales strategy research. The client wanted to better understand customer satisfaction and perception of services provided by the organization. The market research objective was to provide decision-making insights needed to determine how the client may better serve their primary client base in the future.

Approach:  The RMS Analytics team collected data from current, prospective, and former customers via a blinded online survey and in-depth telephone interviews (IDIs). During blinded research, the client’s identity is not disclosed to the participant. To hone in on the customer satisfaction with the services provided by the organization, RMS created an online survey script and interview guide which were reviewed and approved by the client prior to commencing fieldwork. Questions focused on how the respondent rated the satisfaction with particular services, customer service perceptions, satisfaction with the company’s sales strategy, as well as interest level in services that the client considered adding to their suite of offerings. Fieldwork lasted approximately two weeks for the in-depth interviews, and one week for the online survey. Following the data collection and analysis period, a comprehensive report was delivered to the client, which included a visual dashboard of the findings, as well as next steps and recommendations.

Results: Here are some highlights of the study’s findings:

• The research identified the areas where the organization excels in serving its customers, including excellent customer service, and the dependability of the organization.
• Top service needs desired by customers were identified, which included education and training, parts delivery, online parts catalog and ordering, and vehicle body repair service.
• Since the client interacts with three distinct stakeholder groups during the buying process, RMS identified the most desired information by stakeholder group to streamline the sales strategy and improve the customer experience.
• To further increase the satisfaction of current clients, as well as gain additional market share, RMS identified a niche market offering that the organization may offer to simplify the buying process and entice competitor customers.

RMS is a full-service market research firm located in Syracuse, NY. If you are interested in learning more about our research capabilities, please contact Sandy Baker, our Senior Director of Business Development & Corporate Strategy at SandyB@RMSresults.com or by calling 1-866-567-5422. Visit our website at www.RMSresults.com.

Read Full Post »

Qualitative Research Incentives: 5 Reasons Why More is Better

Many qualitative research projects, such as focus groups or in-depth interviews, will offer a monetary incentive to entice people into participating. In fact, unless the research is being conducted for a person’s employer or for a charitable organization, incentives are the only way to get them to give up their time. At the beginning of such a project, the amount of an incentive needs to be established. Some organizations don’t hesitate to offer generous incentives, while others try to save money by offering a low amount. Based on our extensive experience with such projects, we here in The Bunker think that offering low incentives is usually a classic example of being pennywise and pound foolish. Here are five reasons we believe it’s usually best, from a research standpoint, to open up the purse strings and offer more rather than less:

1. Higher Levels of Engagement – Participants who have been offered what they consider to be a generous incentive are more eager and favorably disposed toward participating in a study. People are happier when they feel like they are being well-compensated for their time. That’s just human nature. The increased energy and positive attitude is very important when a person is going to be sitting through a focus group that might last two hours or a telephone interview that could go on for an hour.

2. Faster Recruit Times – Many qualitative research projects are conducted on a very tight timetable with inflexible deadlines. There’s usually a desire on the client’s part to get the results fast. In the case of a focus group, the difference between a quick project turnaround and something that drags out is usually the process of recruiting participants. A low rate of people willing to participate can force you to put more costly resources into recruit and/or reschedule the groups. Oftentimes, the incentives have to be raised midway through the process. We have found through our recruiting efforts at our Syracuse, NY call center, that high incentives make people more likely to agree to participate, or to at least entertain the idea before hanging up. Since an unproductive recruit can completely hamstring a qualitative project and throw timelines off, it only makes sense to reduce that risk through higher incentives.

3. Fewer No-Shows – What if you held a focus group and nobody came? Okay, that’s an unlikely worst case scenario, but an otherwise well-planned and executed focus group can be ruined by light participant turnout. In some cases, make-good groups have to be scheduled, which nobody wants. In the case of in-depth interviews, few things are more frustrating than calling an interview participant at a pre-arranged time only to find out that they are not available. High incentives can’t eliminate those problems completely, but they certainly help. It goes without saying that people who are willing to back out of a commitment that will pay them $40 will be much more hesitant to pass up $150.

 

4. Long-Term Savings – It may seem counterintuitive, but committing more money up front for incentives will usually result in lower overall project costs. The hours saved from having a higher incidence rate with recruiting calls and a reduced need to over-recruit to make up for no-shows will often more than cancel out the increased incentive costs. It is sometimes hard to convince people of those savings at the beginning of a project because they are anticipated, whereas high up-front incentive costs are immediate, but having worked on projects with both low and high incentives, we in the Bunker can vouch for the fact that the savings involved with the latter are very real.  

5. Positive Associations for the Research Sponsor – Every organization that conducts market research tells participants that they value their opinion, and most are sincere when they say it. Those who pay substantial incentives put their money where their mouth is and prove it, creating positive associations with the organization (assuming the research isn’t blinded) for a long time thereafter. On the other hand, offering an incentive that is seen as cheap or stingy can have the opposite effect. What kind of message does it send when people are asked to give up an hour or more of their time for a $10 gift card? At best, such an incentive would fail to generate interest, at worst it can insult the potential participant and leave a bad taste in their mouth. Why risk that?

Read Full Post »

9 Reasons to Choose In-Depth Interviews (IDIs) | Market Research in Upstate NY

A previous post discusses how focus groups still have curb appeal among market research agencies – click here to read it. Projects at our QualiSight focus group facility in Syracuse, NY cover everything from advertising message development, new product concept testing as well as many other applications. There’s no question this market research technique has delivered useful insights to countless decision-makers. But it’s also true that the market research industry sometime uses focus groups without due consideration of an alternative form of qualitative research: in-depth interviews (IDIs).

The advantage of IDIs over focus groups include the following:

1. Better rapport. In a one-on-one setting, the interviewer can devote complete attention to each research participant, listen actively and take time to establish good rapport. Also researchers can make the surroundings more relaxing for individual interviews. This makes respondents feel more at ease and facilitates a good bond.
2. Better sampling. Many focus group facilities have compiled lists of willing focus group participants (qualitative panel) that are used to reduce costs of purchasing new lists. Because recruiting is easier when scheduling IDIs and researchers need fewer respondents to attain the same results, random sampling is employed more often, increasing the general confidence in findings.
3. Useful with Difficult Recruiting. When recruiting hard to reach individuals, setting up IDIs is a better option than a focus group because you only need to accommodate one individual. IDIs also elicit candid responses in a private setting regarding personal and/or professional topics of discussion.
4. Fewer distractions. It is not unusual for one or more participants in a focus group to be especially talkative or try to dominate the discussion. A good moderator can manage these situations, though this usually has some effect on other respondents. IDIs eliminate the distractions.
5. Faster and cheaper. IDIs are usually quicker and less expensive than focus groups. Special facilities are unnecessary, researchers need fewer participants and scheduling is more flexible. Participation commitments are easier to obtain resulting in lower incentive payments for IDI participants.
6. More productive. Compared with non-response among focus group members, there are relatively few unproductive IDIs. As a result, researchers only need about half as many respondents to accomplish the same objectives.
7. Deeper Insights. In a typical focus group, respondents have an average of 10 minutes each to talk (~120 minutes divided by ~12 people). With IDIs, each participant has more time and opportunity to share feelings, perspectives, and attitudes. The interviewer has plenty of time to probe and obtain in-depth responses since respondents tend to express themselves more freely.
8. More flexible. Focus groups limit location options. In contrast, IDIs offer greater flexibility in location because researchers can set up almost anywhere or conduct the interview over the phone.
9. Faster adaptation. In many projects, researchers make findings during the interview that lead to discoveries. It usually requires only a few IDIs to make the discovery and implement change, where at least one focus group is required to do so, and in some cases two are needed. The sooner researchers can identify an issue, the fewer resources it will spend on a flawed design.

In-Depth Interviews work best in B2B research where you are interviewing someone with specific knowledge or if the situation is better suited to sitting down one-on-one. When the market research involves B2C research, focus groups are often the preferred mode.

Need some help defining which method works best for your needs?  Visit our website by clicking here or by calling our Business Development team at 315-635-9802.

Read Full Post »