The relationship between market research and the media, with the economic recession as example

---

By Leigh Andrews

On Thursday, 28 January, I attended the MasterCard Consumer Confidence research findings session. On my return to the office, I found that a number of media members had already reported on the results – some going beyond merely giving feedback to actually interpret what these findings mean for consumers, as the key message from the session was that ‘we are heading for a full recovery’. That’s all good and fine, but how long will it take for us to actually gain steady footing again?

Justin Wolfers of the Freakonomics blog questions the accuracy of how the media reports on research findings, in a blog post titled ‘You say recovery, I say potato’. He points out another bone of contention – what is the real difference between ‘having recovered’ and being ‘in recovery’ from the recession? This choice of wording used by researchers will often determine whether the correct message is given to the media audience or not.

Hoping to find out more about the effects of inaccurate market research reporting, I recently interviewed Professor George Angelopulo of the Communication Science department at the University of South Africa. Angelopulo related a tale about how when he was a student, his Economics professor mentioned an annual economic forecast that was always prominent in the media but full of inaccuracies. He added that it is often only in hindsight that we can identify what has been accurately represented. Angelopulo feels a key factor in determining coverage of research data is the value ascribed to it. This includes who conducts the research; what it’s about; how it’s presented; and how much editorial consensus there is on its value.

Unfortunately, more attention is often paid to these factors than to the actual assessment of the research question; its methodology; or findings. Reputable research is covered as a matter of course, but media attention is often cursory and perhaps less accurate unless it addresses a burning issue, such as economic recovery… unless Julius Malema is involved. Therefore, entertainment value also needs to be considered.

I also spoke to Neil Higgs of TNS Research Surveys about the topic. He said that in 2003, at the time he became the Media Spokesperson for TNS Research Surveys, TNS took a decision to become much better known in and by the media. He added that the media has a job to do. So, if a marketing research press release and its spokesperson help them to do that job, the result will generally be good.

But what does a ‘good result’ actually entail? A ‘good’ report needs to accurately reflect the research data in the press release, which is ultimately the responsibility of the research organisation. While most journalists are responsible and do not deliberately misrepresent the results, they often need an angle to engage their readers; which is where attention-grabbing headlines play a role. Added to this, the public generally has a poor grasp of all things technical and mathematical, which means the potential for media consumers getting the wrong end of the stick is high.

Higgs feels that mangled research results are harmful to everyone as the media is immensely powerful and pervasive. While the company often receives requests for their ‘full research’ after it appears in the media, most people take media reports at face value. Huge responsibility therefore lies with both the researcher putting the initial facts together, as well as the reporting journalist, in order to avoid misrepresentation, as the ‘if it’s in the media it must be true’ mentality is hard to overcome.

I feel this links to the ‘power of positive thought’ train, which can also play a role in the public’s perception of how research findings have been portrayed. This is also where psychology comes in. After all, if the media states that things are on the up and up, one would assume that the consumers reading these reports would feel encouraged to start spending again, as we are effectively being told ‘everything’s okay again, you can breathe now and stop clutching at pennies.’

Just a word of warning - hardcopy is not always accurate, no matter how large the typeface. What are your feelings on market research findings being reported in the media – is the media the right place for this, or does it only open the door for misinterpretation? Leave your comments in our blog.

View all

Surveys and the media – TNS Research Surveys perspective

---

By Leigh Andrews

I recently interviewed TNS Research Surveys Director, Neil Higgs, on the quality of media reports based on research findings. He had the following to say:

“Since 2003, I have been the Media Spokesperson for TNS Research Surveys. At that time, we took a decision to become much better known in and by the media. It has been an interesting time and we have learnt a huge amount – principally, that the media has a job to do and that, if a marketing research press release and its spokesperson help them to do that job, the result will generally be good.”

But what does a ‘good result’ actually entail? Higgs states that while researchers want to obtain a good mention of their company, this is just the start. The principal outcome needs to be a report; insert; or interview that is credible and reflects the data in the press release correctly. Credibility comes from having data that is based on a good and robust sample, and that has used proper questioning techniques on a subject of relevance and interest. That is the responsibility of the research organisation, and the way it writes the press release. It is also the responsibility of the spokesperson, who needs to be senior; knowledgeable; and au fait with current events, trends and issues of all kinds.

Higgs says that the next step is the critical one. While most journalists and reporters are indeed responsible, and do not deliberately misrepresent the results, there are three factors that can get in the way:

*They often need an angle – something that will get the piece into the medium in the first place, and something that will engage the readers; listeners; or viewers. It is best if the original press release is written with this in mind in the first place, to try to minimise the effects of the need for an attention-grabbing headline at a later stage.
*They may have their own agenda – in which case, anything can happen.
*Not all reporters understand how research and numbers work, and how to report on them. Coupled with a generally poor grasp of all things technical and mathematical among the public, the potential for people getting the wrong end of the stick is high.

Higgs feels it is thus possible that research results become mangled beyond belief in the media. This is potentially harmful to everyone. He says, “The media is immensely powerful, and I have indeed been amazed at the reach and recall our press releases achieve. We routinely receive requests for the full research we have done after it appears in the media. These requests come from government (usually on a national and local level); as well as academics; NGOs; policy-makers; industry-players; and others with an interest. But most people will take the media report at face value. This can lead to ‘egg on the face’ for the research organisation - and the whole research industry - at the very least, if it is wrong. This can be difficult to get over, as people tend to remember dramatic results for a long time, and they can come back to haunt one at a later stage.”

Higgs has also found that many people use results they see in the media if they support (or if they think they support) a position they have on a topic. This has the potential to lead to bad decision-making, as would be the case for anyone using misleading information. It also has the potential to stick in the public and media’s consciousness for a long time with very serious consequences. Of course, this is also true of the research itself.

Higgs concludes by stating that problems the media and the public have in understanding research relate to understanding the issues around what is an adequate sample size and coverage, and why results don’t always reflect the views or behaviours of their idiosyncratic circle; understanding that how a question is asked affects the response pattern; and understanding the difference between results and the researcher’s conclusions – or opinions.

The media also tends to omit crucial pieces of information such as the sample size or margin of error, as well as the timing of the study.

Higgs feels it would be good for journalists and reporters to receive training in how to present research findings, as he once encountered a journalist who did not understand that 33% of nine-million people equates to three-million people. “Then, all bets are off!”

Huge responsibility therefore lies with both the researcher putting the initial facts together, as well as the reporting journalist, in order to avoid misrepresentation, as the ‘if it’s in the media it must be true’ mentality is hard to overcome.

View all