Collaborating beyond Responding

THE TEETHING TROUBLES OF SURVEY RESEARCH

In today’s business reality, decisions cannot be based on random,
uncontrollable factors such as luck. In this fast-moving environment the chance
to fail is greater than ever. Figures reported by the Doblin Group show that
96% of all new product introductions and innovations fail to return
their cost of capital (Marsh, 2012). The market space requires brands to
validate their communication and advertising efforts before an actual market
launch. Organisations are tracking more and more consumer perceptions on all
valuable touch-points. Businesses and marketers are striving for a more
data-driven decision-making process. We need those hard-core numbers
to help us select the ideas to take forward and the ones to leave behind. This
need for fact-based decision-making is the reason why survey research
remains a very powerful and commonly used research method.
The 2012 global research report by ESOMAR shows that no less than 76% of
all market research projects conducted worldwide are in the field of quantitative
research. The power of survey research lies in its validation strength,
surveys helps us provide those (no) go decisions on a brand, product
or strategy level. Yet, considering the stimulating innovations that have
moved the research industry in the past years, surveys research has been
lagging behind on several important aspects.
What to
expect?

Online surveys are part of an engaging
environment - everything online is fun, gamified
and interactive. Nonetheless, filling in an online
survey is not that much an engaging activity
and we need to realise that participants are
always just one click away from exiting
our surveys. Besides the high drop-out rates,
this lack of engagement has an impact on the
data quality - researchers are confronted more
and more with straight-lining behaviour and the
level of detail in participants’ answers is
dwindling. This low(er) engagement is at the
foundation of what we could call “the global
warming of panels”. It is becoming
increasingly harder to attract people to
participate in research. Especially
considering some important target groups such
as youngsters and Millennials who grew up in
this fast-pacing environment.
1 From boredom to engagement
These people are considered to be stimuli junkies
and will stop any activity that does not succeed in
crossing the minimum expected engagement
level.
Some research players have turned to
gamification as the Holy Grail to enhance
participant engagement (Puleston & Sleep,
2011), while others have redefined the research
landscape by introducing fresh survey formats
(e.g. Google consumer surveys) or by focusing
on behavioural data. Yet, is this enough and
what is the ultimate recipe for re-engaging
people to participate in survey research?

Survey research insufficiently copes with the complex reality of consumer behaviour. Decisions are
influenced by a number of dynamics and it is important that surveys mirror these different aspects
in order to provide valuable input for clients and their business needs.
2 From quarantine to consumer context
Consumers are social animals
Consumers are social animals and our decisions are coloured by group thinking or herd behaviour
(Earls, 2009). The majority of consumer decisions are taken in a social setting (both conscious and
unconsciously). We tend to copy the behaviour of people around us rather than to use our
own (maybe more rational) information to guide our decisions. Nevertheless, we do not
take into account this social dimension in survey research. We keep on conducting surveys in an
individualistic setting, where participants are asked to answer one question after another without
being able to connect and reflect with other participants.

Consumers are bad witnesses of their own behaviour
Survey research traditionally taps into the so-called
“system 2 thinking” of our brain. Nonetheless, the
whole thinking behind behavioural economics and
the work of Daniel Kahneman (2011) show that our
decisions are mainly taken quickly, automatically by
the so-called “system 1” side of the brain. We are
not rational thinkers and we use heuristics for
our decision-making. One of these heuristics is
“emotions”, our decisions are wired by
emotions. We thus need to tap more into implicit
attitudes and procedural knowledge in our surveys.

The majority of consumer decisions are taken in a certain context or occasion. It is important to
grasp the contextual background consumers are in when making certain decisions (e.g.
consuming or buying a product). An answer to a question might not be as simple as yes or no, but
might be explained by ‘yes when’ or ‘yes because’. Context is a better predictor of consumer
behaviour than individual characteristics (Spruit, 2012). We need to get a better
understanding of the variations in consumer behaviour depending on the consumer situation or
context.
The majority of consumer decisions are taken in a certain context or occasion
Are we losing game to other research methods?
Considering the importance of data for the decision-
making process, the need for accuracy and
projectiveness is present more than ever. Can survey
research reclaim its position to provide consistent and rich
data for decision-making by capturing the complex
consumer reality, while at the same time increasing the
engagement level?

A PARADIGM SHIFT
Taking into account the above mentioned truths, we have designed a new survey
approach. A two-paradigm shift rests at the base of this new survey thinking.

Why is it that we, researchers, fail to create an
engaging experience for participants? In
order to get a better understanding of
participant engagement, we need to
capture the concept of motivation. The
self-determination (SD) theory, initially
developed by Edward L. Deci and Richard M.
Ryan (2000), explains that motivation, or in this
case participant motivation, is a continuum and
not a fixed state. It relates to a task within a
context. This continuum (see Figure 1) has two
anchoring points, a-motivation on the one
hand and intrinsic motivation on the
other. In between lay a number of levels of
extrinsic motivation. Naturally, intrinsic
motivation is the ideal state.
1 The empowered consumer
This is where participants are mainly driven by
internal factors and are therefore more likely to
sustain the activity. Yet, the motivation level to
participate in surveys is generally located in
the middle of this continuum, where
participants are mainly driven by external
factor such as incentives. Furthermore, the self-
determination theory describes how to move
people’s motivation along the continuum. To do so,
you need to foster feelings of autonomy,
competence, relatedness and value.
AMOTIVATION
INTRINSIC
MOTIVATIONEXTRINSIC
MOTIVATION
Task is not done properly
Interest, enjoyment
highly competent
Figure 1 – Motivation continuum (SD Theory)

AUTONOMY
Autonomy refers to the fact that you allow
participants to choose to do something or
not. Traditionally, when filling in a survey, you
enter this tunnel experience - getting one question
after the other, screen after screen. In order to
avoid this, we can develop a modular survey
approach dividing the survey into different
modules or building blocks. These modules can
contain both question types and tools. In this
modular survey, participants can choose which
building block to start the survey with. This
modularity principle in its pure form may not be
realisable for all survey set-ups. Some research
projects may need direction and a strict flow in
questionnaire design; for these set-ups we can
use the idea of ‘perceived non-linearity’. When
participants complete a building block, by filling in
all the questions within that block, they will unlock
a new module.
Combining this gamified element with a nice
modular survey layout, where every building
block is a visual element, enables participants
to break out of the traditional survey tunnel.

Even in the best case, where we put our efforts in
creating an engaging experience or where we invest
in gamification techniques, participants are only
asked to answer our questions without being
given the option to share extra feedback. Yet
consumers are valuable brand consultants and we
should start leveraging this, even in survey
research. This can be done rather easily by giving
participants the possibility, after their initial survey
participation, to enter a second survey dimension
where they can truly collaborate with the brand and
researcher.
Next, in traditional survey research we do not
allow participants who are topic, brand- or
experience-engaged to collaborate with
brands or researchers beyond their survey
participation. Some participants would like to
enter an additional collaboration dimension
and help out brands, but we do not allow them
to do so. A study conducted by InSites
Consulting at the end of 2013 showed that
44% of consumers would like to
collaborate with brands. Yet, the traditional
survey format does not allow participants who
have something to say to share their advice
with brands or researchers. We basically let
participants go after their survey
participation, without truly leveraging
their full potential. Why is it that we do not
allow engaged participants to go further in
their collaboration with the brand?

COMPETENCE
The feeling of competence, which is about
showing participants that they are good at
something, can be reached by empowering
consumers to do more than simply
answering a researcher’s questions. We
should give participants a role beyond responding,
by involving them in tasks that are normally on a
researcher’s repertoire. An example here is the
use of crowd interpretation (Verhaeghe et al,
2011), where we show the live survey results to
participants, for example, and ask them to
interpret them by using their own background and
knowledge as a reflection point, in order to get a
greater understanding of the research results.
This is where participants engage in a co-
researcher role. Research conducted by Balcetis
and Dunning (2011) revealed that we, as
individuals, fail to take into account the
influence of the situation when predicting our
own behaviour. By contrast, when predicting the
behaviour of others, we correctly take into account
the influence of these circumstances. These
findings show that by involving consumers in
an interpretive role, we might gain greater
understanding.

RELATEDNESS
The third dimension stipulated by the self-
determination theory is relatedness, which is about
showing participants that other people just
like them are doing this. Filling in a survey is a
rather a-social and lonely activity; as a participant
you might even wonder whether you are alone in
this. Theories such as Herd by Mark Earls have
highlighted the importance of recognising a social
dimension in marketing and accordingly marketing
research. A first step would be to make
participants aware of the fact that they are
not the only ones filling in the survey. This
could be done by real-time visualisation of the
number of people participating in the survey. The
true feeling of relatedness is fostered when
allowing participants to connect and reflect
with other participants on the research topic.
Important here would be to allow participants to
introduce themselves to one another. The latter
might function as a conversation starter and will
show participants that people just like them are
contributing to the research project as well.

VALUE
The last feeling we should foster as researchers in
order to increase the engagement level is ‘value’.
Namely, showing participants that what they
do has a meaning. Traditionally in survey
research we do not share with participants who
the research is for, in order to avoid any potential
bias. If we want participants to become an
active empowered partner in research, we
can benefit from introducing the brand
behind the research project and by even
sharing the objectives of the research.
Researchers and brands have to acknowledge
that participants can provide valuable feedback to
help a brand, yet we often do not allow them to
share any with us. Being open and transparent
towards participants shows them that their
contribution matters. By uncovering the real
research objective participants get a clear idea of
the value of their contribution.
Today, consumers expect to go beyond simply
‘responding’. Yet the foundation of survey research,
like Pete Comley (2006) describes, is a parent-
child relationship between researcher and
participant. The sole role of participants is to
respond to a researcher’s questions, without
allowing them to ask questions in return.
Nonetheless, researchers can benefit greatly from
a partner relationship with participants. It is
therefore time that we allow participants to play a
more active role in research and become an
active empowered partner. This empowerment
starts with creating an engaging survey experience
for participants by fostering feelings of autonomy,
competence, relatedness and value.

2 Moving out of that box
Next to the importance of boosting
participant engagement, we are feeling
the need to capture a more contextual
understanding in survey research. We
researchers currently fail to mirror the
complex consumer reality in our surveys.
We need to redefine our current survey
thinking in order to capture the different
dynamics that influence consumer
behaviour. The second paradigm shift is a
result of inside- the-box thinking. The sole
role of participants in survey research is to
respond to a researcher’s questions. Traditional
survey research is thus mainly about asking
questions in an individual setting. Yet, in order
to grasp the consumer reality, we might need to
go beyond asking questions and to think out of
the box. In research we can identify three
supplementary collaboration modes
between researcher, brands and
consumers: listening, doing and co-
creating.

LISTENING
The researcher openly listens to and observes
the consumer. When looking into the research
landscape, we can detect plenty of approaches
tapping into observing spontaneous consumer
behaviour. This can involve the direct observation
of consumers in their natural setting through
(online) ethnography but also listening to
what consumers spontaneously share on social
media (e.g. social media netnography or
monitoring). We also observe an increasing
importance towards integrating behavioural data
(e.g. purchase data, online clicking behaviour etc.)
into research. Also within survey research,
examples have popped up where data was enriched
with the social graph of research participants
(Rodenburgh, 2012) or even physiological data
coming from for example eye tracking or ERP
research.
But listening in surveys has moved beyond
capturing behavioural data. It involves every
attempt where the research participant has the
chance to speak up, to share whatever is on his or
her mind on a certain topic.

It is about giving people the chance to give
answers without asking questions. It is about
taking a bottom-up approach where the
consumer determines the rule of
conducting research. This can be done, for
example, by integrating an exit forum at the
end of the survey where consumers can share
whatever is on their minds, but it could also
involve approaches where consumers have
the chance to formulate questions for other
research participants (Schillewaert, 2009).
The benefits of embracing this mode of ‘just
listening’ are twofold: on the one hand it leads
to more objective fact-based information
giving us insights into what consumers
DO and not only say.
On the other hand, it helps us uncover new insights
into consumer behaviour that we were not
aware of before, simply because we did not think of
asking any questions about it.

DOING
The researcher involves participants in
different task-based exercises, where they are
asked to undertake a certain activity. There are
generally two kinds of approach within this
collaboration mode. To start with, at times
consumers cannot express themselves because
they are simply not aware of their own behaviour.
We are bad witnesses of our own behaviour. This is
in line with the whole thinking around behavioural
economics, which expresses that the majority of
what we do is done implicitly. So why ask people
about it? We need to use new and creative ways
within survey research that allow us to capture
this ‘system 1’ thinking. One way to do so is by
using time-pressure exercises. As people do not get
the time to reflect on their answers, we get a glance
of automatic behaviour leading to new information
(Verhaeghe et al, 2012). A second reason why
asking consumers to do things can be more powerful
than asking them to explain things has to do with
how our brain stores information.
In cognitive psychology (Schneider and Schiffrin,
1977) we make a distinction between declarative
(knowledge about something) and procedural
knowledge (knowing how to do something).
Neuroscience has uncovered that both types of
knowledge are stored in different part of our brains
and hence require different techniques to trigger
recall. However in survey research we do not adapt
our approach based on what we need to identify.
We mainly tap into the declarative brain. Research
shows that procedural knowledge can be
explored by allowing people to do things. This
can be reached by embedding more scenario
thinking and storytelling in research but also by
allowing participants to explain something through
visual cues. There already exists a need in survey
research to move more towards task-based
research. Or better: it is not what you ask
people, it is what you do with them.

CO-CREATING
This is the ultimate collaboration dimension, where
participants take up a very active role in
helping a brand beyond just giving their
opinion. Here consumers have the opportunity to
think along with brands and be involved in tasks that
traditionally are considered as being beyond their
capability. Examples of co-creating tasks are
involving consumers to shape the solution
space by including them in idea brainstorms
and asking them for their advice based on
survey results. Qualitative research has already a
long tradition of co-creation but so far this mode has
not entered survey research yet. The benefit of
empowering consumers to explore the solution
space together with us is twofold: it is a known fact
that innovations or campaigns that are co-created
with consumers have a bigger impact (Schreier et al,
2012).
Moreover a great idea can sometimes come from
somebody who enters the discussion with a fresh
unbiased perspective. But there is more: by
looking at the actions consumers propose
based on the research results, we can learn a
great deal also about what they are looking
for.

These collaboration modes can be plotted against
a second dimension representing the inter-
consumer relations or interactions. Theories such
as Herd make us realise that we are more
socially determined than we think we are.
However, today survey participants function in
isolation, not being allowed to reflect and connect
with other participants. We need to move away
from solely looking at the individual
respondent and to recognise the value of
inter-consumer reactions. This is where our
second dimension comes in, a continuum going
from individual to connected in 3 phases: me,
crowd and group.
Me: no real inter-consumer interaction is present
and the focus here lies on the individual participant.
Crowd: there is an interaction between
participants, yet no real closed feeling of
belongingness. We have a group of individuals who
are not yet a team working together towards a
common goal.
Group: close interaction between participants
who share a feeling of belonging to the same
community.

By combining both dimensions we can identify
a framework with twelve quadrants (see
Figure 2). Traditional survey research
primarily focuses on one single cross-point in
this framework, namely individual and asking.
Yet, survey research can greatly benefit
from going beyond this single-box
thinking. This does not imply that we should
completely let go of asking questions to
participants, this will still remain the core of
quantitative survey research. However,
combining the different collaboration
modes will allow us to better uncover the
underlying dimensions of the research
topic. Some aspects require activities beyond
asking questions in order to expose them.
Moving beyond the border of asking should
thus allow us to better capture the complex
consumer reality.
Figure 2. Research collaboration framework

eBay UK wanted to get a better understanding of why consumers lapse (or decrease in buying
frequency) by exploring the perceived site experience and its drivers and barriers. Besides
optimising the current eBay proposition, eBay also wanted to explore a new solution space for online
shoppers. The research ran in the UK amon different types of lapsers within the fashion and consumer
electronic product categories. A total of 834 consumers took part in the research. The scope of this
research was threefold (see Figure 3) :
1 Project background
Describe the behaviour and attitudes related to lapsing and pinpoint
areas of improvement for eBay
Generate insights into key success factors for eBay to manage
lapsing
Explore the solution space for lapsing, with a focus on inspiration
and findability
1.
2.
3.
Figure 3. Research flow

The research method used explored the boundaries
of survey research. In order to assess the impact of
this new approach we split-ran the survey. Some
participants got a traditional survey whereas others
got the enriched version containing the modular
approach and the village dimension. The research
approach is based on our new survey thinking
where we go beyond asking questions and
apply the principles of the self-determination
theory to better engage participants. The main
survey consisted of a modular survey design, in
which the survey was composed of different building
blocks or modules. The self-determination theory
claims that autonomy is a key driver of engagement.
Therefore, we introduced the concept of perceived
non-linearity by combining the modular survey
approach with a gamified unlocking element.
2 Project methodology
After the main survey, participants were invited
to enter “The Village”, a second optional
survey dimension which allowed engaged
participants to go further in their
collaboration with the eBay brand. After
participants filled in the survey, they could thus opt
in for this optional part where they could connect
with other participants and reflect on the research
topic together. The Village is a platform
consisting of different buildings, each of which
contains a different task-based element.

This study thus went beyond the traditional
single-box thinking of individual and asking.
The different tools in and after (The Village)
the survey can be plotted on our framework
(see Figure 4). The survey still consisted of
various research questions, yet on the
individual dimension we also introduced
some task-based exercises. Next to that,
the introduction of The Village and the
contagious tool allowed us to involve
the crowd through the social dimension
embedded in these tools. More detailed
information on each of these tools is
available in the next section.
Figure 4. eBay project framework

Next to the traditional questions, we
introduced some new tools in the survey:
3 Project approach
IMPLICIT MEASUREMENT TOOL
The eBay brand image was measured through implicit attitude testing,
allowing to recognise natural and potential brand associations.
Participants got to see each statement for three seconds and were asked
to press the spacebar if they felt the statement could be attributed to eBay.
The tool is located in the doing and individual cross-point of the
framework. This Implicit Measurement exercise allows plotting all
statements on two dimensions: (1) the percentage of participants
linking the statement to eBay and (2) the time before pressing the
spacebar, resulting in four quadrants (see Figure 5):

Figure 5. Implicit Measurement quadrant
Natural associations: These are
spontaneous associations - the majority of
participants link the item with the brand with an
above average reaction time.
Potential associations: These items are
highly associated with the brand, however they
require some reflection (response time is below
average). These items trigger some “ahaa”
feeling of recognition, however they could
become more natural when investing in additional
communication efforts.
Niche associations: These items are only linked with the brand by a few participants, yet the reaction
time is above average. These are mainly items that are recognised by a specific target group (e.g. heavy users).
Limits: Few participants link the item to the brand and the reaction time is below average. If an
important brand item is contained in this quadrant, the brand needs to invest the required resources to turn the item
in question into a potential or natural association.

MY SHOPPING TRIP
In order to get an understanding of eBay’s role (and
that of its competitors) in the purchase process, we
introduced a task-based question in which
participants could reconstruct their purchase
process visually. Participants got an empty timeline
representing their purchase process from start to
finish. They could fill the timeline by dragging icons of
sources (information channels or platforms) onto the
visual and by explaining for each source how they
used it. Furthermore, we asked them to rate each
source on the extent to which it facilitated them
and contributed to their final purchase
decision. The outcome of this task-based exercise
allowed us to grasp the perceived positioning of eBay
in the purchase process and the use in each stage.
This gave us the potential to identify and quantify
differences in the search process across
subgroups.

CONTAGIOUS TOOL
In order to understand the lapsing behaviour, an
important element was to explore the drivers and
barriers for buying on eBay. These were
measured by means of a new tool which allows
highlighting a so-called ‘contagious effect’. In a first
phase, participants were asked to write down
what they considered to be ‘reasons for buying
on eBay’. They could write down spontaneous
answers, using key words, in five open-answer boxes.
In a second phase we showed them a word cloud
including all answers from all respondents for
this question up until that point in the survey. The
word cloud combined their own answers with those
given by the other participants. In a second phase, the
participants could click on those words in the
word cloud that they felt were also ‘reasons for
buying on eBay’.
This exercise allows identifying both
spontaneous and prompted drivers for buying on
eBay. In addition, the word cloud allowed
participants to see that other participants
also contributed to the research; this semi-
social dimension thus taps into the relatedness
aspect as specified by the self-determination
theory.

THE VILLAGE
After participants had filled in the survey, they could opt in for The Village where they could
connect with other participants and further collaborate with the eBay brand. The eBay
Village consisted of five buildings: the Lounge, the Ideation, the Inspiration wall, the Newspaper
stand and the Gallery (see Figure 6).
Figure 6. The Village

We did not simply introduce eBay as the brand behind
the research project, we also openly shared the
objectives of the research. This is the only way to truly
encourage consumers in providing valuable feedback
to help a brand. Apart from these featured topics,
participants could create their own posts related
to the research topic, which allowed them to
discuss and interact with other participants. This
open social space helped to gain additional insights as
it provided us with answers to questions we did not
even ask.
The Lounge (1) is the central building of the village where participants can connect with one
another, start a discussion on topics created by the researcher and even post topics of their own. In other
words: participants can connect with one another, the researcher and the eBay brand. In the Lounge we
introduced three featured topics where participants could introduce themselves, give feedback on the survey
and share their advice with the eBay brand. The topic in which participants were asked to introduce
themselves functioned as a conversation starter and showed participants that people just like them were
also contributing to the research project. This introduction topic enhances the feeling of being visible
as a consumer and thus taps into the relatedness aspect as defined by the self-determination theory. In
another topic, participants were asked to share their advice with eBay.
Figure 7. The Lounge

In the “Inspiration wall” building (2)
participants were asked to share inspirational
examples they believed eBay could learn
from. They could do so by uploading images,
YouTube videos and links to interesting
webpages. Participants were motivated to look
for example in- and outside the online shopping
platform environment. A real task-based
element which taps into the co-creation
dimension of the collaboration framework,
where participants were involved in generating
inspirational output eBay could learn from. In
this exercise we emphasise the value
aspect, as explained by the self-determination
theory, by openly sharing the objective for eBay.
The result is their own inspirational board
with explanations on how eBay should
implement this in order to optimise its
current offering. In the Gallery (5)
building, participants could view the work of
others, Like it and comment on it.
Figure 8. Inspiration Wall

In the Ideation building (3) participants
were asked to brainstorm and share ideas on
three topics related to inspiration and
findability, two areas in which eBay wanted to
optimise their current offering. Besides posting
their own ideas, participants could see what other
people posted and Like it or comment on it. This
idea sharing allows involving participants in
discovering the solution space. This task-based
element taps into the co-creation
collaboration dimension, where participants
are asked to think along with brands and tap into
the solutions space. The output of this exercise is
the creation of ‘idea cards’, which combine a
consumer idea with an inspirational visual that
can be used in future workshops or strategic
meetings. In the Newspaper stand (4)
participants were asked to write a critical
review of their shopping experience. For this
challenge, we asked participants to think of a
fashion/ consumer electronics item that they
would like to buy in the very near future.
Positioning this as a real task-based challenge,
participants had to pretend they were going to buy
that item, so we invited them to visit eBay and other
platforms and to write a review about their experience.
The strength of this exercise is that we are not
focusing on recall, which is visible in the added value
from positioning this as an in-the-moment task-based
challenge. In the Gallery (5) participants could
view the reviews of others, Like them and
comment on them.
Figure 9. The Gallery

4 Research findings
IMPACT ON PARTICIPANT ENGAGEMENT
Introducing a modular survey approach showed to
have a positive impact on the participants’
satisfaction level. The use of a second optional
survey dimension, The Village, also contributed to
a positive increase in satisfaction level. Statistics
from SSI, our sampling partner for this project,
showed that the extent to which participants were
extremely satisfied increased with 30% in
comparison with the benchmark condition. In
addition, the interest to participate again in this
type of research projects doubled, compared with
the benchmark setting. Overall, participant
experience was very positive: “Definitely loved
the new take on surveys you guys used. And I
very much prefer this method.” Nevertheless, the
major positive impact of this new approach was
visible in the contribution level throughout the
different task-based elements in The Village.
The Village was optional and only
available after participants completed a
15-20-minute survey. We know from previous
research that the maximum attention span is
about 20 minutes, yet 10% of the participants
actively participated in these additional
contextual tasks. Taking into account that these
contextual tasks are used to get additional
sensing and understanding, such proportion is
well suited for this purpose. Additional
experiments showed that this proportion varies
depending on the research topic, the active
participation rate ranging from 10% to 25%.
Overall, all active participants are
characterised by a high topic and brand
identification level and they are mainly driven
by intrinsic motives to participate in research.

The output of the task-based elements showed that
participants went beyond the expected in their
involvement. In the Newspaper stand, for example,
we noticed that the level of detail in their stories
was significantly higher compared to what we
receive in traditional surveys. This can be explained
by the increased engagement level entailed by
the task-based character of the challenge and
the social visibility the platform creates.
Overall, participants in the new-style survey
reported a significant 15% increase in ‘feeling
understood’ in comparison with the benchmark
condition. Next, participants felt that eBay was
more open to their suggestions and feedback,
compared to the results of the traditional
survey approach. This shows that survey
research can have an impact on the consumer
brand perception. Considering that surveys are yet
another touch point between consumers and
brands makes this another interesting finding.

The enriched set-up used a modular design.
As the questionnaire design required a fixed order,
we used the concept of perceived non-linearity.
The order of the different questions was the same
for both the traditional and the enriched survey
design. The enriched survey only differed through
its design and gamified unlocking element. In a
first dimension we needed to understand
whether the latter would lead to different
results. Comparing the data from the traditional
survey approach with those of the modular design
showed that the new survey design did not lead to
significant deviations in the data. These findings
highlight that a modular approach, combined with
a nice design, could be a first step towards
increasing the participant motivation level as a
result of an increase in perceived autonomy. This
does not mean that from now on we can ask
hundreds of questions in a single survey as long
as we introduce the modularity concept.
IMPACT FOR THE RESEARCHER
Researchers and research users should still take into
account the natural limit of acceptable interview length
for participants. Next, the output of the contextual
tasks allowed us to form more tangible
recommendations. In a first analysis phase we
analysed all questions included in both the traditional
and enriched survey designs (excluding any new tools
and task-based challenges). This formed the basis of
our traditional research report and conclusions. The
second analysis phase included all enriched elements
and tools. Comparing both reports taught us that not
only we had more data, but more importantly that the
data was also richer. The contextual output from the
new tools and challenges, composed of consumer
visuals, stories and ideas, allowed us to bring more
sensing and understanding into the research
results. In addition, the involvement of consumers in
shaping the consumer space and the possibility to
share their advice and feedback, allowed us to shape
very tangible recommendations for improvement.

The impact for eBay was threefold: gaining
contextual understanding, the ability to uncover new
insights and achieving more actionable research
output.
IMPACT FOR EBAY
A first key benefit was the addition of contextual
understanding to the survey data. Survey research
helps to answer the predefined research questions and
objectives; however these answers often lead to
additional questions. There is a need to combine the
survey output with some additional sensing and
understanding. The task-based elements in The
Village allowed eBay to grasp the contextual space
consumers are in, leading to a better understanding of
the ‘why’ behind the survey data. The ‘my shopping trip’
exercise in the survey allowed to identify and quantify
the role of eBay and its competitors in the purchase
process across target groups. The output of this
exercise showed where eBay enters the flow, what
its role is and how it was evaluates in terms of
facilitating power for the final purchase decision.
1.

In The Village we challenged participants to
pretend entering a new purchase mission,
by visiting eBay and other e-commerce
platforms and to write a review about the
experience. These review stories allowed us to
get a detailed understanding of the perception
and performance of the different platforms. Yet
the real value came to life when combining the
consumer stories and visual output of the
review exercise with the quantification of the
‘my shopping trip’ exercise. Not only did we get
clear view of eBay’s role in the purchase
process for the different subgroups, we
also got a clear sensing and understanding of
how eBay could improve its role. Additionally,
the visual output from these contextual tasks
(user-generated pictures) proved to be stronger
at conveying a message.
The survey highlighted that eBay was lagging
behind on some important buyer
perception items in comparison with its
competitors. The output from the Inspiration
wall, where participants were asked to upload
inspirational pictures and videos that eBay could
learn from, visualised the same critical aspects
as mentioned in the survey. Yet, the visual
storyline from this exercise helped convey the
message in a much more impactful way. Images
are very powerful to convey a similar message
because of their emotional load.

Another key benefit resulting from this new
approach was the ability to discover new
things, applying new tools that went beyond
the single-box thinking, thus allowing to
uncover new insights. The Implicit
Measurement approach allowed for eBay to
distinguish which category items evoke
spontaneous and potential brand associations.
The tool allowed eBay to identify the items that
currently form a barrier and need closer
attention. Apart from measuring the associations
towards the eBay brand, we repeated the same
exercise for eBay’s main competitors. This
approach allowed us to define a new performance
indicator of brand strength: brands for which the
items were located more towards the right upper-
side of the framework have a clearer brand image
than those with items located more towards to
lower bottom-side. This allowed eBay to get an
understanding of its brand strength relative to its
competitors.
Next, the social dimension in our survey set-
up allowed for eBay to capture the
contagious effect arguments might trigger.
This is an important aspect to understand, as
this effect can have an influence on consumer
perception and reflects the actual consumer
reality. The word cloud exercise, in which
participants could indicate other words in a
prompted setting, allowed uncovering this effect.
2% spontaneously indicated PayPal as a driver
for buying on eBay, yet the contagious effect
showed that this increases to 52% in a prompted
setting. Using PayPal in a communication
campaign might thus trigger understanding and
recognition amongst people. This contagious
effect is important for eBay to recognise
and to take into account for future
communication efforts.
2.

A third and last interesting benefit is that the
co-creation tasks led to more actionable
research output. Some of the task-based
challenges allowed participants to help shape
recommendation for eBay. In the ideation tool,
participants were asked to brainstorm on
potential ideas related to inspiration and
findability. The outcome of this exercise was
50 idea discussions, which allowed us to
create idea cards for eBay. These cards,
formulating tangible instructions for
improvement, could then be used in future
workshops or strategic meetings. Next, the
output from the Lounge, where
participants could share their advice
with eBay, allowed to shape very tangible
recommendations based on consumer
feedback.
3.

Is it ‘game over’ for surveys? Reflecting on
the approach and learnings described
above, we can conclude that the answer is
definitely “no”. Yet, we need to realise that
it is high time to walk away from our
traditional survey thinking.
5 To conclude

We need to invest in a survey approach
which empowers consumers. Consumers
expect to go beyond responding, so why not allow
them to do so? We have given some examples of
how you can foster the feelings of autonomy,
competence, relatedness and value in order to
boost participant motivation. Yet, we, researchers
and brands, can do many other things. We need
to acknowledge that we have to step away from a
20-minute survey where the only thing
participants can do is answer the researcher’s
questions. An engaged consumer will
contribute better to research, will provide
better and richer answers and is more likely
to share his experience with others.
Considering the fact that surveys are yet another
touch-point between consumers and brands, this
will result in a win-win-win for all of us. In addition,
we need to go beyond that single-box
thinking in survey research. Each set-up
should ideally combine all four collaboration
modes and allow consumer to connect and reflect
with one another.
The activities and tools used in each of these
collaboration dimensions will depend on the research
objective, yet only combining the ‘asking’ dimension with
other modes will allow to uncover the real consumer
reality. Traditional survey research is still far too
focused on the individual consumer, yet this
illustrative case shows that we can benefit greatly from
introducing a social dimension in survey research. The
framework can be used beyond survey research. Online
research communities, for example, mainly touch upon
the group dimension (shared feeling of belongingness
amongst participants), with the different community
activities tapping into the different collaboration modes.
This framework thus allows us to think beyond the
boundaries of traditional research methods and
will extend the possibilities of true fusion research.
We should move beyond silo thinking and realise that, in
fact, it is not only about thinking out of our ‘individual
asking’ box, it is about realising that there really should
be no box at all in research. It is about grasping
consumer reality to the fullest and using creative
methods to reach that goal.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank some people who helped me
throughout all phases of this project.
Firstly, I would like to thank Annelies Verhaeghe for all her support, creative
thoughts and knowledge sharing. I also thank Ioana Joanta and Dieter
Verschueren for their contributions in developing the tools we used for this
project. A special thank you goes to Joost Van Eyck, Helmont Siau and
Ken Vanderbeken, all part of the development team at InSites Consulting,
for creating The Village platform. Also to Hannes Willaert, the creative brain
behind the look and feel of the modular survey design and The Village.
This project would not have been possible without the collaboration opportunity
from eBay and Barbara Langer in particular. Also great thanks to
Christophe Vergult and Annelies Verhaeghe for managing the content
side of this project.
Last but not least I would like to thank our sampling partner SSI, who helped
us with the recruitment for this study, and in particular Pete Cape, for sharing
his knowledge on participant motivations.

Barbara Langer
Head of Market Insights
eBay Europe
Katia Pallini
Senior Research Innovation
Consultant
InSites Consulting
Annelies Verhaeghe
Managing Partner
InSites Consulting

www.insites-consulting.com
Thank you!
@InSites
marketing@insites-consulting.com
www.facebook.com/insitesconsulting
www.slideshare.net/InSitesConsulting

Collaborating beyond Responding

Collaborating beyond Responding

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

More from InSites Consulting

More from InSites Consulting (16)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Collaborating beyond Responding