Ideal Participants in Online Market Research: Lessons from Closed Communities

Abstract

Online market research communities are dependent upon their members' participation, which in turn provides market intelligence for community operators. However, people join these communities for different reasons. The selection process for market research community members and the moderation process of these communities have a number of pitfalls, which can result in misleading interpretations of intelligence and flawed decisions based on their contributions. Using social capital theory in conjunction with research on different motivational types of participant, this paper focuses on lessons from commercially operated, closed online market research communities; it provides us with insights on membership selection and community moderation methods. The practical finding is that the ideal participant of such communities would be attracted by activities and rewards, which do not directly or obviously relate to the specific objective of an online market research community.

Motivations for and outcomes of participating in research online communities

“…Community members feel valued when they give and receive information as part of their participation in the community and, more importantly, when their feedback serves as a springboard for the company's decision-making processes (Comley, 2008). Given the value of reciprocal conversations within MROCs, it is essential for marketers to figure out how to attract members to MROCs and enhance their patronage of one (Heinze et al, 2013). This challenge can be met by examining why consumers choose to join MROCs.…”

“…It should be noted that MROCs are similar to online panels in that they consist of a pool of registered people who have consented to participate in research on a regular basis (Brüggen et al, 2011;Göritz, 2004Göritz, , 2008Heinze et al, 2013). Both are voluntary opt-in commercial online communities initiated by companies seeking opinions on a certain topic and operated by a set of guidelines and policies (Daugherty, Lee, Gangadharbatla, Kim, & Outhavong, 2005;Vocino et al, 2015).…”

“…The old adage, "no news is good news," does not work in the context of MROCs. Even if the feedback to members is, "We heard you, but can't act on your great suggestions just yet," that simple act is often enough to foster a reciprocal brand-consumer relationship (and is a far superior choice than silence) (Heinze et al, 2013).…”

“…By understanding the relationship between motivational functions and an array of positive outcomes such as community identification and feelings heard, researchers or companies can develop customized appeals to recruit new community members. This finding also suggests managerial takeaways about how to manage and retain community members (Baldus et al, 2015;Brüggen, Wetzels, de Ruyter, & Schillewaert, 2011;Heinze et al, 2013;Vocino, Polonsky, & Dolnicar, 2015).…”

The Undesired Effects of Digital Communication on Moral Response

“…Ha quedado sentado también que el capital social puede tener además efectos negativos, fomentando la rivalidad intragrupal (Durston, 2000), provocando restricciones a la libertad de los integrantes y dificultades de acceso para los extraños al grupo (Portes, 2000), o estimulando las nivelaciones a la baja de las motivaciones de los individuos de las comunidades (Heinze, Ferneley & Child, 2013).…”