Call it a trade bias, but I’m always curious to know what people around me think about brands, products and ad campaigns. So when I recently found myself in the grocery store with my boyfriend and picked up a milk carton, I asked him: “So, did you notice the new packaging for Natrel? What do you think of it? What does it communicate?” “I don’t like it…” he responds, “but it doesn’t matter, anyway” he adds quickly, blocking my next set of questions, “because we never buy Natrel, we buy Lactancia”.

Now, I’m not the type to inventory our fridge every week, but I look in it often enough to be able to tell you with absolute certainty that we do NOT always buy Lactancia, and if I were to look in my fridge right now, there would be 50% chance that the carton would say “Natrel” rather than anything else.

Gamification is coming up as a new trend for data collection, making the experience more enjoyable for the respondent while allowing the researcher to obtain higher quality data. But how does one go about creating this experience?

A game for research purposes is built around two simple criteria:

1. A game needs rules, that are simple, clear and few.
2. A game needs a goal that is made explicit from the start and is attainable by all players

Humans have played games since the dawn of time, as it is a means to have fun, to socialise, to compete and to build a reward system through progression, accomplishment and ultimately a win.

Gamification in market research strives to bring this natural human tendency to surveying, by applying game thinking and game mechanics to engage users in solving problems.

The idea behind it is to convert respondents into players, by offering not a survey but an experience. The key is that players don’t need to be tense nor mentally prepared before setting forth to play. We are not completing a survey in exchange for reward points or a chance to win an iPad. No, this is an experience we were born to enjoy!

La désirabilité sociale est le processus psychologique, conscient ou non,  par lequel l’individu essaye de contrôler son image afin de se présenter sous un jour favorable à ses interlocuteurs.

Bien évidemment, un tel mécanisme est susceptible d’avoir un impact significatif sur les résultats des recherches qualitatives (groupes de discussion et entrevues individuelles) puisque les individus se rencontrent et sont donc plus enclins à « vouloir » projeter une image socialement acceptable. Pour dépasser cet écueil, l’animateur a à sa disposition une grande variété d’outils.

Les prétests réalisés par le biais de groupes de discussion sont une éternelle source de tension entre publicitaires et gens de recherche. Parlez-en aux créatifs ayant déjà subi le supplice de voir leurs concepts se faire détruire sans ménagement lors de ce genre d’exercice…

Ces prétests ont mauvaise presse. Et avec raison. Les groupes de discussion ont des limites indéniables (basés sur des concepts non finis, résultats non quantifiables, etc.) et leur réalisation est souvent déficiente (participants inadéquats, animation boiteuse, effet de groupe, interprétation superficielle, etc.). Trop souvent, ils tuent l’audace et conduisent à des réalisations convenues et aseptisées, qui peinent à performer dans un paysage publicitaire encombré. 

Alors, les prétests peuvent-ils être utiles? Oui, s'ils sont bien menés.