Feedback Draft Social Media Guideline

Reaction to the ESOMAR SMR Guidelines

Background

Social Media are growing at an incredible rate. Market researchers, consultants, communication and pr agents, digital experts, we all see huge potential in this relatively new medium and provide value adding tools and services based on the information shared by people.

We are finding ourselves in a new Wild Wild West, the digital kind. A place where cowboys are active again and ‘the law’ has yet to be defined. Some cowboys are bold and brave and continue to push the limits. This is a good thing. We learn what is good, what is bad and ugly.. Actually these cowboys are already turning into professional providers of (webcare) services and marketing information. This new industry is maturing very quickly. In the meantime they are exploring the boundaries and writing new laws as we speak.

Esomar’s draft guidelines on social media research is laying down a new but traditional set of laws. But these laws do not apply to everyone. It is just for established market research agencies that wish to engage in social media research. With these guidelines we are appointing ourselves as sheriff in a land where no one can claim authority at this time. A Sheriff can only function when he is respected. In this digital Wild Wild West cowboys will still be cowboys and we as sheriff do not have means to force them to be law abiding citizens. This means that the market research industry will separate ourselves from these new agencies. While this may seem smart at first sight (the traditional and trusted sheriff should be in charge), in the opinion of the Research Quality Board (RKG) it will not be long before the cowboys are the new sheriffs when we don’t adopt to the new boundaries they are exploring.

The marketplace

Clients we currently serve can choose to work with these new agencies or with us. They have more sex appeal than traditional agencies and by not submitting themselves to these guidelines can deliver more added value. As a consequence our clients will not choose us but will work with other players than market research agencies in this new land. This means we will not be able to build a solid expertise in this area and the RKG fears for our position in two, three years time.

At this moment, publishers, media giants, companies with access to large consumer databases are working together with (our) clients to build large engagement platforms or communities as you wish. And Facebook fan pages and forums are perhaps the biggest competition for our mroc’s. We limit ourselves and our clients too much by stating that our communities are intended for research purposes only. Our competitors state, and correct they are, that communities can be used to engage with clients, entertain them, give them a platform for customer care, make them more loyal or even brand ambassadors, offer them deals, be the first to use new products, etc. etc. Research is also somewhere in this list, although definitely not a first priority.

Draft Guidelines on Social Media Research

With respect to scraping, the distinction made between open and semi-open is too complicated. Information on twitter and facebook is open except when people choose to make their profiles private. We agree that we should not use information that is private. If we live by this rule alone we are more strict than Google for example! Open information is currently used. Different services provide access to this data with references to the original source and sender. Anonymising and cloaking are outdated and belong to the world of questionnaire research. What will happen when we provide data cloaked and without reference and others provide the same data in original form? Again our clients will choose to use a data provider that offers full service and analyze these data themselves. And what effect do anonymising and cloaking have on the prices at which we can offer our services. We offer less for more. Let us not forget that we may assume that consumers are aware that they communicate in public when they post on Twitter or Facebook. And if some people are so naive that they are unaware of this obvious fact is it our role to educate them? Social CRM and webcare are growing quickly as well. We have made a living by bringing opinions of clients and consumers to manufacturers and ‘establishing contact’. By cloaking and anonymising we could reassure respondents that their individual information would not be passed on. As a positive side effect we could maintain our monopoly in providing access. Now we are faced with social media that establish this contact more easily and more directly without us being in the middle. Furthermore, the shift of power to the consumer means that they are less fearful to provide information about themselves. They are in control and choose where they want to be customers and choose to be heard by companies.

The draft guidelines suggest that when we react directly on twitter we not only introduce ourselves (off course) but also provide “an email address and a telephone number and or mail address to facilitate contact”! We are using twitter! A new way of communication that was chosen by someone explicitly. Why would we want to spam them with our old ways of getting into contact with us. And where’s the room to actually start a dialogue with this person (perhaps a reminder that a tweet can contain only 140 characters is in place here).In five years time it is not unthinkable 50% of all information companies use comes from social media. Will we, market research firms, be the provider of this information? With these guidelines, we will certainly not be.

Conclusion

In conclusion, restricting ourselves in this way to possibly circumpass future legislation and terms of use is noble. However, at this moment in time it seems to be unwise. It is trying to protect our own business in a way which will be counterproductive. It projects old world research guidelines to the new world. Social media are not (only) our domain. New rules apply and we will need to be flexible and adapt. Not only to ensure that we as an industry survive but also to acknowledge that our role has changed. We are not here to bring aggregated consumer opinions to companies, we are here to facilitate a dialogue between consumers and companies, but only for research purposes and not for (direct) marketing or sales applications. Not through a screen of smoke, but directly, raw and uncut. With understanding of the new dynamics. Consumers are far more aware of their actions and power that social media give them than these guidelines suggest.

We do agree that we are in need of guidelines for the use of social media in research. One of the rules should be that we commit to not using private information, as mentioned earlier. We should take some time to elaborate on this issue, because these guidelines may well define the future of our industry. 

Rijn Vogelaar                                                                        

Chairman of the Research Quality Board (RKG-NL)**                       

Tel. +31 (0)10 4000938                                                           

e-mail rijn.vogelaar@blauw.com                                   

Twitter: @rijn

** The Research Quality Board (RKG-NL) represents 80% of the total turnover in market research in The Netherlands.