qualitative research techniques in brand management

Finding the Right Research Methods for Brand Management

Strategically  developing your brand, and enhancing its value , helps to foster strong relationships with clients and prospects, thus building a stronger path to new business. But developing a brand is only the beginning. Managing it is a continuous, and often challenging process.

In this post, I will review some common brand management challenges and address which research methods are right for the job.

What are the biggest brand management challenges?

Managing a brand  requires an understanding how it’s perceived from multiple vantage points: internally (staff, leadership) and externally (prospects, clients, competitors, referral sources). It’s easy for a once-harmonious brand message to go out of tune.

Consider some of the challenges brand managers face:

• Convincing leadership that brand management is worth the investment
• Measuring brand awareness in the target market
• Differentiating their firm from competitors
• Crafting a positioning statement
• Unifying internal and external brand messages
• Keeping a consistent message across marketing channels
• Building a digital brand strategy
• Upgrading brand logos and other graphics

Addressing these issues requires a deep understanding of both your target clients and employees. This is why many professional services firms turn to research to help manage their brand.

Download the Professional Services Guide to Research

How can research impact brand management?

Mergers, acquisitions , and  firm anniversaries  are common situations when a firm might reassess it’s brand strategy . However, the professional services marketplace can evolve quickly — offering growth opportunities for the firms that can recognize them, but making brand management difficult.

Our latest  research  on high-growth professional services shows that research is the fourth-most impactful marketing technique, falling behind only providing assessments, keyword research/SEO, and live product/service demonstrations.

When it comes to high-growth firms, they are more than twice as likely to conduct research on their target market when compared to firms with no growth. Not only are high-growth firms more likely to conduct research, they also conduct research at a more frequent pace.

This proactive, inquisitive approach helps these high-growth firms anticipate behavioral changes in target markets—allowing them to stay relevant and contributing to their success.

What research methods make the most sense?

The research method that is best for you will depend on the brand management challenges you need to address. For instance, brand awareness in a target market may be best measured using quantitative methods, such as surveying or polling. On the other hand, redesigning a logo and crafting relevant positioning and messaging require more of a qualitative approach.

SEE ALSO: QUALITY VS QUANTITY: A MARKETER’S GUIDE TO BRAND RESEARCH DATA COLLECTION

Quantitative Research Methods

Quantitative research focuses on objective, empirical measurements and statistical analysis. Common data collection methods include the use of surveys (both digital and print), polling, interactive quizzes, and in-depth interviews.

Quantitative methods — such as examining the perception gap between clients and employees — can uncover differentiators, competitive strengths, and opportunities for improvement.

For example, suppose that through a client survey you find the majority of clients believe your firm is best known for flexibility and responsiveness. Internally, employees didn’t mention this. In this instance, the quantitative method of comparing external and internal respondent ratios has uncovered a potential differentiator.

Quantitative methods can also be useful when measuring marketing  metrics  like  Net Promoter Score , the probability of referrals , and brand strength index . These metrics are valuable alone, but can be taken to a new level when tracked over time.

Qualitative Research Methods

The creative side of branding is especially effective when grounded in research. Qualitative research methods — like observing client behavior in real time, focus groups, and in-depth interviews — are a great way to take a raw brand direction and smooth it out.

You could, for instance, couple a quantitative survey with in-depth interviews of the types of clients you want more of. A talented interviewer can probe and extract language that might inform the way you describe your differentiators.

An Integrated Approach

In-depth interviews are a great way to balance quantitative and qualitative research methods. Add in an online survey of your internal staff and you have an integrated approach that will yield actionable insights that help address common brand management challenges.

For professional services firms, combing research methods has proven to be a successful formula. And client interviews provide an added benefit: they demonstrate that you value your clients’ perspectives and are interested in improving your overall client experience.

Free Resource

The Professional Services Guide to Research

How Hinge Can Help

Brand research gets to the core of what will resonate with those audiences—and is an integral part of what Hinge does for clients. Learn more about  our research services  or  contact us  to learn whether research makes sense for your professional services firm.

Additional Resources

• Our  Professional Services Guide to Research  gives you the tools and knowledge you need to lead your firm through conducting research.
• Develop a stronger and more valuable brand with Hinge’s  Brand Building Guide for Professional Services Firms .
• Uncover your firm’s true differentiators and give buyers a reason to pick you out of the crowd in Differentiation, Positioning & Messaging through Hinge University .

Most Popular Posts

• A Game-Changing Business Development Strategy to Achieve Consistent Growth
• Brand Development Strategy: 10 Essential Steps for Your Professional Services Firm
• How to Master Strategic Marketing for Professional Services Firms
• Digital Branding for Professional Services
• 10 Essential B2B Marketing Strategies to Grow Your Professional Services Firm
• Digital Marketing Strategy for Professional Services
• Proven Rebranding Strategies for Your Professional Services Firm
• Elements of a Successful Brand 1: Brand Positioning
• The Top 5 Business Challenges for Accounting & Financial Services Firms
• Top 21 Examples of Key Differentiators for Professional Services Firms
• Elements of a Successful Brand 4: Brand Promise
• What Is the Cost of Video Production for the Web?

Send me all articles:

• Strategic Brand Management
• Measuring Sources of Brand Equity

For any marketers, it is of supreme importance to understand a consumer mind and also current level of brand knowledge among consumers because this understanding lays foundation for formulation of marketing communication strategies. Hypothetically, marketers should be able to construct such mind print; but as this knowledge resides in consumer mind, task become difficult.

Marketers should be able to measure how much marketing programs have succeeded in changing customer buying habits. The solution is to develop techniques, which can convert emotional data into qualitative and quantitative data for analysis. A particular attention is required to design measurement system for source of brand equity.

One of the primary measurement system is capturing the response of customer in a basic questionnaire format , where in, they are asked to express feeling with regards to particular feature of brand and overall experience in using a service.

Another qualitative research technique looks to capture consumer behavior in understanding her purchase decision. Here question are asked, to understand how the consumer came to purchase decision, what factors they consider, is there a particular time of the year do they make this purchase, etc.

Marketers’, profile brand association by asking open end questions, like what first comes to your mind when the brand name is mentioned. Here response from consumer can be a good indicator of individual emotional connection with the brand.

Important points to be considered in deploying this free association technique is question design, that is they should start from overall brand image and then moving on to questions with precise reference. Another consequential point to remember here is related with coding of information, as questions are moving from general to very exact.

A drawback using open ended information gathering process is that there could be instance where a consumer may not speak their mind and not disclose a true feeling associated with the purchase decision, for example, they bought brand to get them social status, but they may want to portray as a casual purchase.

Furthermore, unfamiliarity with the person could as well prevent consumer from speaking her mind. To counter this problem projective technique is employed where in a situation are shown to consumer, and they are required to fill in details as per their liking. However, this technique is also not foolproof.

Another projective technique tries to compare brands with characters or any un-related object or a person and once done, marketers would try and analyze the response.

Quantitative techniques are much prevalent as a research alternative. In quantitative techniques consumer are usually given option to rank a direct question. Quantitative techniques are used to check brand awareness part of brand knowledge and try to dig deep in understanding consumer perception of the brand.

Recognition is essential part of brand awareness, meaning consumer should be able to identify the brand under different circumstances, for example, for a given brand some part of packaging may be shown to consumer and task is to identify that brand and also provide their confidence rating in guess the brand.

Another part of brand awareness is brand recall, which means to evoke thoughts of consumer under a possible clue like list brand for portable music players or been specific like what beer brand you would associate as a foreign brand.

Other quantitative techniques are developed to understand the brand image, brand response in terms of purchase decision, brand relationship with regards to customer loyalty and long term commitment.

Qualitative and quantitative research techniques are design to understand the source of brand equity from consumer’s perspective .

Qualitative techniques are used to research and analyze brand association consumer has towards the brand, using techniques like free association, story-telling, etc.; it can bring out true feelings.

On another hand quantitative research techniques are used to understand brand awareness in respect to recognition and recall and also through scaling precise measurement for source of brand equity is done.

  Related Articles

• Brand Equity - Meaning and Measuring Brand Equity
• Integrating Marketing Communication
• Brand Association to Build Brand Equity
• Brand Equity Measurement
• Measuring Outcomes of Brand Equity

View All Articles

Authorship/Referencing - About the Author(s)

The article is Written and Reviewed by Management Study Guide Content Team . MSG Content Team comprises experienced Faculty Member, Professionals and Subject Matter Experts. We are a ISO 2001:2015 Certified Education Provider . To Know more, click on About Us . The use of this material is free for learning and education purpose. Please reference authorship of content used, including link(s) to ManagementStudyGuide.com and the content page url.

• Customer Based Brand Equity
• Brand Positioning Strategy
• Brand Elements to Build Brand Equity
• Programs to Build Brand Equity
• Branding Strategies
• Identifying Market Segments
• Naming New Products
• Managing Brands over Time
• Brands over Geographic Boundaries
• Building Strong Brand Equity

• Join the AMA
• Find learning by topic
• Free learning resources for members
• Credentialed Learning
• Training for teams
• Why learn with the AMA?
• Marketing News
• Academic Journals
• Guides & eBooks
• Marketing Job Board
• Academic Job Board
• AMA Foundation
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
• Collegiate Resources
• Awards and Scholarships
• Sponsorship Opportunities
• Strategic Partnerships

We noticed that you are using Internet Explorer 11 or older that is not support any longer. Please consider using an alternative such as Microsoft Edge, Chrome, or Firefox.

The Four Steps of Effective Brand Research

Quantitative and qualitative research are crucial tools for building a brand strategy. Discover the four steps to effective research that finds insightful data.

When it comes to developing a cohesive brand and marketing strategy, the process should always start with a healthy amount of research. Both quantitative and qualitative methods are crucial for getting a lay of the land before delving into strategic planning. So how do brands use both to their advantage?

Below, we’ve outlined the importance of brand research as the foundation for an impactful strategy that captures attention and builds value for your company. Along the way, we also thoroughly review our recommended four-step brand research approach.

The Importance of Brand Research

When beginning any strategic branding process, it’s easy to assume that you know exactly what your client or audience needs or wants. But there’s a high chance that you have certain blind spots, knowledge gaps and things that could be leveraged that you’re unaware of.

When beginning a brand assessment, it’s important to go in with as broad a perspective as possible to vet and validate your assumptions about your brand.

You may discover that those outside your organization perceive and experience your brand differently than those inside the organization. All of this is crucial information for developing an effective brand strategy .

When it comes to using qualitative research versus quantitative research, both are valuable tools in your arsenal for understanding different dimensions of your audience. Many organizations jump straight into quantitative (or data-driven) surveys without taking the time to interview customers one-on-one to understand the emotions and experiences behind the data, which is the qualitative part of the research puzzle.

By using both, you can paint a more complete picture of the way people react and interact with your brand. Qualitative research provides a gut feel for what seems most important to your brand, while quantitative research tells you to what degree those things matter, allowing you to understand the depth and importance of the variables associated with your brand.

The four steps below help lay a foundation of knowledge upon which you can build a more-informed brand strategy and methodology that speaks to your brand’s mission and the needs of your customers.

Step #1: Identifying Key Issues Qualitatively

Qualitative interviews that capture common experiences, perceptions and sentiments about your brand are the first step towards a well-founded brand strategy. But to do so, you need to cast a wide net to capture the whole picture of what your brand represents to all stakeholders.

Start by taking a cross-section of your entire organization. Many organizations make the mistake of only interviewing the C-suite executives, but it’s crucial to interview employees from different departments, tiers, regions and branches. This is going to engage the organization and allow you to culturally align it. It also helps your interviewees buy into the brand because their voices are being heard, and helps you gather a healthy set of perspectives from the organization, top to bottom.

Customer engagement is the other side of this process, but don’t forget to talk to more people than just existing customers. What about past customers? What about lost customers? What’s a good customer? What’s a bad customer? What is their perspective going to be like? How do they think and talk about the brand? These questions will help provide insight into what your brand represents to different sectors of your audience, identify gaps, and likely provide opportunities for improvement.

Then, there’s often a competitive analysis factor to your qualitative research. Try to gather an understanding of what the marketplace is doing and saying, and how other brands might be organizing their products, services, their value-added benefits, their claims, their warranties and their service/product promises. This will also influence the survey design that you’re going to put together for the quantitative side of your research later on.

This step will begin to paint a broad picture of your brand from different perspectives. Remember: your brand exists as an idea in the minds of your employees, customers, competitors and onlookers. The qualitative research aims to understand that idea and begin to solidify issues, opportunities and recommendations that can be addressed in your brand and marketing strategy.

Step #2: Developing Concepts & Ideas

With your qualitative research in hand, you can begin to distill your findings into test concepts. Think of them as a kind of hypothesis about your brand: “people react well to our messaging about X product/service,” or “people don’t believe our claims about our value proposition.” This gives you something to test when you begin your quantitative research.

Whatever your test concept is, it should be founded in the research you performed in step 1. Comb through your interviews and identify common themes or similarities in responses to determine where your brand has issues or opportunities to address.

If your goal is to determine a design direction for a rebrand, this stage might be where you think about a few creative updates to ask about during the quantitative research. That will give you testable ideas to learn how people respond and react.

When you have your test concepts ready, it’s time to move into quantitative testing.

Step #3: Quantitative Testing

Now it’s time to put your hypotheses and themes found in the previous two steps to the test. Surveys using the ideas you developed in step 2 allow you to see what customers prefer: do they respond better to a personable, down-to-earth brand voice , or do they prefer a more elevated, professional approach? The same kinds of tests can be run on visual brand identities , taglines, and brand names.

The important benefit of quantitative research is that it confirms or denies the hypotheses you’ve developed from your qualitative research. You can then confidently say, “50% of the customers prefer this while 80% of the customers prefer that.” It strengthens your decision making with data that is more generally applicable to a wider audience.

The other benefit is that it provides hard numbers that can help increase buy-in for branding or marketing recommendations. An intensive brand strategy can take a lot of investment, but if you have data to back it up, it’ll be easier to more confidently prove the benefits of going in one direction over another. It’s a method of reducing risk by providing some insurance that this decision is backed up by solid research.

If the quantitative research indicates that your concepts and ideas are missing the mark, then you’ve learned early on that your findings are misaligned with broader trends. This could indicate an unintentional bias in your research, or show that it’s time to go back to the drawing board with a new concept that better captures your qualitative findings. Either way, you’ve saved yourself the trouble of finding this out after implementing the strategy, and can reset to find a better solution.

Step #4: Analyzing Data

In many cases, the biggest mistake organizations make happens after they have done the quantitative research and are equipped with their facts, figures and pie charts: Forgetting that those graphics must be interpreted in light of all the qualitative learning that went into creating them.

When evaluating the statistics found in your quantitative research, it’s crucial to remember that your qualitative findings help provide deeper context and insights into every quantitative finding. In order to transform your data into meaningful strategies and implementations, you have to fully understand the complete picture around the numbers.

When analyzing, try to look at the data, take biases out and think about what the numbers say. For instance, “How does that number correlate to what we heard in interviews?” You need to be able to put that emotion with the factual information as it allows people to buy in. It allows people to truly feel invested in the work you’re doing.

Connecting the dots between your quantitative and qualitative research is the biggest source for productive conversation and analysis. Try to keep your own personal assumptions out of your analysis and focus on what your team members, stakeholders and customers are saying. This can serve as a catalyst for your organization to make real change that speaks to your audience effectively and builds value for your company.

Take Your Brand Research to New Heights

Use this four-step plan to push the limits of your brand and truly understand the needs of your audience. If you’d like to learn more about how to upgrade your brand research process, explore methods of audience strategy . Or, contact BrandExtract to consult with an expert strategist and level-up your brand.

By continuing to use this site, you accept the use of cookies, pixels and other technology that allows us to understand our users better and offer you tailored content. You can learn more about our privacy policy here

Qualitative Research Techniques: Key Tools for Shaping Brand Equity

In today’s fast-paced and competitive business world, it’s crucial to know how consumers perceive brands. The way people connect with a brand and the value it holds are key factors that influence how they buy and what they choose. To gain deeper insights into these aspects and understand their impact on consumer behavior and brand loyalty, companies employ various research techniques, one of which is qualitative research.

Qualitative research techniques are invaluable tools for marketers and brand managers to refine their strategies, strengthen brand equity, and build deeper, more meaningful connections with their target audience. Four qualitative techniques that are commonly use are: free association, projective techniques, brand personality, experiential methods.

FREE ASSOCIATION

Free association involves identifying the range of possible brand associations in consumers’ minds. This technique assesses the relative strength, favorability, and uniqueness of these associations.

Free association in “Share a Coke” campaign:

Coca-Cola, one of the world’s most recognizable brands, replaced its traditional logo on bottles and cans with various popular first names in its “Share a Coke” campaign. The idea was simple but effective: it encouraged consumers to find and share a Coke with someone who had a bottle carrying their name.

By doing this, Coca-Cola not only created a sense of personalization but also triggered free associations in the minds of consumers. When people saw a Coke bottle with their name or the name of a loved one, it instantly connected them with feelings of happiness, nostalgia, and sharing moments with friends and family.

PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES

Projective techniques are tools used to uncover consumers’ true opinions and feelings when they may be hesitant to express themselves directly. Various tasks are given, such as presenting images or pictures that may or may not relate to the brand, to prompt individuals to reveal their subconscious perceptions and associations with the brand. Two common types include completion and interpretation tasks and comparison tasks.

Projective techniques in “The Happiest Place on Earth” slogan:

Disney, as a magical and enchanting brand, use of the slogan “The Happiest Place on Earth” in reference to its theme parks. This slogan encourages consumers to complete and interpret the idea of happiness associated with Disney’s brand.

When people hear or see this slogan, they are prompted to imagine and complete the statement in their minds: “Disneyland is the happiest place on Earth because…” This completion task allows consumers to project their own feelings and experiences onto the brand.

By utilizing projective techniques, Disney has effectively reinforced the brand’s image as a source of happiness and nostalgia. This approach has proved Disney’s position as a beloved and iconic brand, evoking positive emotions and cherished memories in consumers worldwide.

BRAND PERSONALITY

Brand Personality:research measures a brand’s personality and values by asking open-ended responses to questions linking the brand to persons, animals, or objects. This process encourages individuals to think and define the brand’s personality traits.

Brand personality in “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” campaign:

In the mid-2000s, Apple launched a memorable advertising campaign titled “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC.” In these ads, Justin Long personified the “Mac” as a laid-back, creative, and user-friendly character, while John Hodgman portrayed the “PC” as a nerdy, uptight, and somewhat outdated character. Through humor and relatable scenarios, Apple was able to associate its Mac computers with qualities like simplicity, creativity, and innovation.

This campaign allowed consumers to perceive Apple as a brand that aligned with their values and lifestyle. It positioned Mac as the choice for those who wanted a user-friendly, stylish, and reliable computer, thus building a strong brand personality.

The success of this campaign contributed to Apple’s rise in popularity, and it helped establish Apple as a brand known for its distinctive personality, which resonated with consumers. Over time, this qualitative research-driven branding strategy contributed to Apple becoming one of the most iconic and recognized technology companies globally.

EXPERIENTIAL METHODS

Experiential Methods go beyond traditional qualitative techniques by studying consumers in their natural environments. By observing their real-life behaviors, such as in their homes, workplaces, or during shopping, researchers aim to gain more meaningful responses.

Experiential methods in “Real Beauty” campaign:

Dove conducted a social experiment where women of various ages and backgrounds were invited to describe their appearance to a forensic sketch artist who couldn’t see them. Later, strangers who had met these women during the experiment also described their appearances. The results were remarkable: the sketches based on strangers’ descriptions were consistently more attractive than those based on the women’s self-descriptions.

Dove used this experiment to convey a powerful message about self-esteem and self-perception. This experiential approach allowed Dove to connect with its audience on a personal level, showcasing their commitment to promoting real beauty and self-acceptance. The campaign became a viral sensation, resonating with consumers worldwide and establishing Dove as a brand that truly understands and empathizes with its customers’ concerns and insecurities. Through experiential methods, Dove successfully engaged with its target audience on a meaningful and emotional level.

FINAL THOUGHTS

While quantitative research focuses on gathering numerical data and analyzing it statistically to identify patterns, trends, and relationships, qualitative research centers on exploring and understanding the underlying motivations, opinions, and experiences of individuals through non-numerical and in-depth methods.

Researching and identifying which qualitative techniques fit best with your specific research objectives, target audience, and the depth of insights you seek can significantly enhance the quality and relevance of your study, ultimately contributing to a better understanding of consumer perceptions, brand associations, and sources of brand equity.

Besides Experiential Qualitative Methods, Experiential Marketing is also an approach that emphasizes creating immersive brand experiences. Check out my latest post here to learn how IKEA capture emotional connections of their consumers through Experiential Marketing.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Quantitative and Qualitative Research in the Branding Process

February 16, 2021.

Destination branding is often ineffective without a robust research phase during the branding process. Public sentiment research, competitive research and other types of research are the foundations of the brand strategy and help narrow in on the story that the brand is to tell. Especially as budgets have tightened in response to Covid-19 and other…

Destination branding is often ineffective without a robust research phase during the branding process. Public sentiment research, competitive research and other types of research are the foundations of the brand strategy and help narrow in on the story that the brand is to tell. Especially as budgets have tightened in response to Covid-19 and other factors, research plays an even more critical role in the process. Research and data help districts, cities, counties and DMOs feel comfortable with and confident in the direction of the brand and its campaigns. Research is what makes branding feel like money well spent.

Both quantitative and qualitative research are important to the branding process . We sometimes see cities place more of an emphasis on the quantitative side, but the reality is that both types of research have value and need to play a role in branding. The balance of each type will be different from project to project, but we believe both should always be employed.

The role of quantitative research

Quantitative research is helpful because it provides hard numbers to reference and compare. We sometimes partner with Probolsky Research , a market research firm based in California, to help us design and implement quantitative research strategies, as we trust their expertise in this area. By conducting statistically valid, multi-modal surveys, we can confidently identify trends, measure sentiments and behaviors, and understand the perception of a destination brand based on data from a representative sample of the place’s population (or a regional population if doing competitive or key market research).

The key benefit of quantitative research is confidence. If done correctly, your data will be representative of the population you survey, and you’ll have better data based on demographic groups (including by geography), so you can be confident in the insights derived from the data. That means public leaders and the public at large will have more confidence in the branding process. You’ll also reach a large number of people fairly easily and can establish benchmarks (like brand awareness in key markets, net promoter scores, etc.) that you can compare year-over-year to ensure the effectiveness of advertising campaigns.

An example of Probolsky Research’s benchmarking work with the City of Napa, California

Quantitative research is also particularly useful when done through an “external” lens — that is, to gauge how outside markets view your destination as a place to visit, move or start a business. You can quickly design a survey that runs in a few key markets, and within a relatively short amount of time, you’ll have a good sense of the way many different regions view your place.

The role of qualitative research

Qualitative research, on the other hand, is much more nuanced. It “summarizes and infers, rather than pin-points an exact truth.” If the role of quantitative research during the branding process is to provide you with the hard numbers you need to back up your decisions, qualitative research illuminates the story of your brand and the people it represents. Focus groups, man-on-the-street style interviews, and casual conversations and observations, while somewhat anecdotal, can help you get a better sense of the feel of the brand, narrow in on the stories of different demographics, and add richness and depth to quantitative data.

For example, in our work in Waupaca, Wisconsin , the brand strategy can be summarized by Chain + Main, where Chain is shorthand for all of the outdoor recreation activities the area has to offer, and Main is shorthand for vibrant community activities, restaurants, businesses and more. Connecting the two areas together is critical for economic development in the area, but that strategy would have been hard to hone in on with just a survey.

The same can be said for our work in Heartland Lakes, Minnesota . The challenge of that project involved uniting several different small communities and marketing them as part of a larger area. The previous name for the area was a mouthful and didn’t resonate with a lot of people. Only through our qualitative research, when we were literally standing on the Heartland Trail that physically connects the area’s communities, did we realize the place should be called Heartland Lakes. It was a lightbulb moment that wouldn’t have had the same effect in survey data.

A CivicBrand focus group in Heartland Lakes, Minnesota

There is extreme value in how much qualitative research connects to public engagement. Your efforts to engage with the public and talk to them about the project have a direct effect on community buy-in and the project’s outcome. If the branding process is done behind closed doors, it’s a lot easier for people to dissent or distract from the message. However if your qualitative research extends a hand to the public and invites them into the process, you’ll create brand champions that will not only provide you with critical feedback, but rally people (and money) around the brand. In this way, qualitative research can have more of an “internal” lens.

The role of equity in research

Think of these types of research as a Venn diagram, with quantitative on the left on qualitative on the right. In the middle, where the two circles overlap, lies the concept of equity, which is something we talk a lot about at CivicBrand . We pride ourselves on having an equitable approach to research and public engagement. That means we make an extra effort to reach the demographics that are traditionally underserved or hard to reach. With quantitative research specifically, we oversample in order to get a clearer picture of the perceptions and attitudes of certain demographics (foreign language speakers, for example). With qualitative research, we identify different groups that may be hard to reach and then go directly to them. At that point it’s no longer a random sample, but hearing their stories is necessary to telling the bigger, brand story.

The role of both types

If quantitative research is the analytical left brain, qualitative research is the creative right brain. By combining both methods, you get the most accurate read of human behavior. But if you lean too far to one side, you miss out on the value of the other method. Stories collected in qualitative research should always be validated as being relatable to the broader audience by testing them in a survey.

It’s also important that you don’t forget your audience. Research should be engaging, regardless of type. Any data you collect should be usable and actionable, and it should guide the brand strategy but not rule it.

At the end of the day, if something produces clarity and insight, regardless of the type of research, it’s valuable. We believe it’s better to focus on the insight itself (and what you can do with the brand because of it) than the way it was discovered.

Listen to CivicBrand CEO Ryan Short, CivicBrand Senior Strategist Brisa Byford, and Probolsky Research President Adam Probolsky discuss this topic in more detail on our podcast .

To learn more about CivicBrand, check out our work . To learn more about Probolsky Research, visit their website .

share this page

No internet connection.

All search filters on the page have been cleared., your search has been saved..

• Sign in to my profile My Profile

Subject index

Qualitative Market Research is a landmark publishing event. The seven volumes provide, for the first time, complete coverage of qualitative market research practice, written by experienced practitioners, for both a commercial and academic audience. The set fills two important market gaps:it offers commercial practitioners authoritative source texts for training and professional development; and provides students and researchers with an account of qualitative research theory and practice in use today. Each book cross-references others in the series, but can also be used as a stand-alone resource on a key topic. The seven books have been carefully structured so as to be completely accessible in terms of language, use of jargon and assumed knowledge. Experienced market researchers will find the tools to help them critically evaluate their own work. Those new to market research will be provided with a complete map of qualitative market research theory and practice (including brands and advertising theory)and the stimulation to discuss and learn more with tutors and practitioners. Qualitative Market Research will be an invaluable resource for academic and professional libraries, commercial market researchers, as well as essential reading for students in market research, marketing and business studies.

The Structure of Brand Research

• By: Jon Chandler & Mike Owen
• In: Developing Brands with Qualitative Market Research
• Chapter DOI: https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781849208840.n6
• Subject: Business and Management
• Keywords: branding ; consumers ; discussion groups ; group discussion
• Show page numbers Hide page numbers

This chapter explores how the way in which research is structured can impact upon its results. Here we explore the implications of different aspects of structure for qualitative brand research: whether research is done through groups or depths, various timing and logistical issues, issues of sampling, issues of client involvement and issues of stimulus material.

METHODOLOGY AS STRUCTURE

In the initial chapters we looked at what brands are and the way in which they come into being in the individual mind and consumer culture through interaction with brand communication. Subsequently, we explored how the process of brand modelling can act as a guide to brand communication. From this point we began to look at how qualitative research is peculiarly suited to taking us inside the world of brands, both at a theoretical level and at a more practical level in terms of different key functions in the brand development process. Now we have reached the point where we can look at some of the specifics of how qualitative market research can access the consumer world of brands and through this evaluate where a brand is now and plan its development.

The problem of accessing the consumer world of brands concerns methodology. On the one hand it is about how researchers structure their overall research approaches. On the other hand it is about what researchers do with consumers to get access to this world of brands, i.e. methodology as technique.

In this chapter we will deal with the first of these areas – how research is structured. Exploring ‘methodology as structure’ needs to address, understand and organise how research structure can be employed to help access and explore the world of brands. Here we encounter some of the issues that are perennial in all of qualitative market research. Should it be group discussions or in –depth interviews? How many sessions and how long? Then there are further issues of sampling, and finally the nagging doubt that there must be some other way. In confronting these issues there are still no right and wrong answers. All of these issues remain ‘live’ for every brand evaluation project and every brand building project. They imply sets of questions that should be asked as projects are being designed.

GROUPS VS. DEPTHS

Current practice in the UK is for the large majority of qualitative market research work to be conducted either through group discussions or in–depth interviews. Group discussions can involve anything from four respondents upwards, most commonly seven or eight. The respondents are led by a moderator (researcher) through a discussion lasting anything from 45 minutes upwards, most often 1½ or perhaps 2 hours. In –depth interviews involve a single interviewer and single respondent and last anything from 30 minutes upwards, most commonly around 1 hour. Between ‘the group’ and‘the depth’ there are also of course ‘paired depths’ (diad interviews), or trios (triad interviews), micro groups, mini groups and so on. Any of these structures has its own particular benefits and limitations. But the key substantial debate about structure in qualitative market research is about the virtues of group discussions(focus groups or ‘groups’) versus the virtues of one –to –one interviews (in –depth interviews, individual depth interviews or ‘depths’). Whilst this debate is more the province of other books in this series (see Chrzanowska, Book 2), some dimensions of this debate have particular relevance to brand and brand development research.

The standard arguments in the ‘groups vs.depths’ debate revolve around a number of areas. At a practical level, groups allow the moderator access to the responses of a greater number of consumers per unit of the moderator's time. This‘exposure’ argument clearly has its downside in the fact that greater numbers must also mean less opportunity for any individual respondent to talk in detail. More significantly, the case for group–based approaches also often focuses upon the interactive character of the group; consumers can‘spark off’ one another, responding to and developing what other people have said in a way that is not possible in a one –to –one situation. In this respect, the group environment itself acts as a tool that encourages additional ‘information’or insights to emerge that might not emerge in a one –to –one situation. Likewise, the interactive character of the group also enables it to be more creative, generating new possibilities out of the‘electricity’ of interaction. Where the goal of research is the identification and development of new brand identities, the ‘interactive’ and hence‘creative’ aspect of groups may often make them more appropriate.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of group –based approaches relates to the techniques they allow the moderator to use. One of the dominant themes of this book has been the argument that brands exist primarily in realms outside of conscious and reasoned thought and rational language. This theme is either implicit or explicit amongst virtually all commentators on brands. In this scenario it is entirely logical to argue that some special tools are required to go beyond what is immediately conscious and articulable. The next chapter of this book will be devoted to an exploration and elaboration of a whole realm of [Page 87] qualitative research techniques which have been developed to access (or at least provide glimpses into) this hidden or obscured world. Traditionally these techniques have been colloquially labelled as ‘projective and enabling techniques’. Whilst many of these techniques can be applied in one –to–one situations, it has often been felt that these are easier to employ in group situations and, indeed, some techniques specifically require a group environment. Here the group setting can provide a more secure and less exposed environment for respondents when they are asked to perform what, on the face of it, may seem unusual tasks. Similarly, the group situation allows the option of asking respondents to perform tasks in pairs or teams, thus allowing them to undertake tasks in a mutually supportive way and creating the possibility that tasks benefit from creative interaction.

Perhaps the most compelling argument for the use of a group environment for either the elaboration of current brand identity or the development of new or potential brand identity is the proposition that brands are fundamentally cultural in their nature. In exploring the identity of any particular brand we are less interested in the particular and peculiar idiosyncrasies of any individual consumer's perception of that brand. Individual perceptions are only interesting and relevant insofar as they reflect something that is either shared with others or held in common with others. Individual perceptions are important to us only insofar as they reflect something that exists at a wider cultural level (Chandler and Owen 1989). By its very nature the group discussion is also a social or cultural event. Here the fact that ‘results’are negotiated between the participants is not problematic, it is precisely why group discussions are valuable; they provide a means of accessing shared meanings and taken –for –granted assumptions and provide a forum in which individual idiosyncrasies can be sifted out. At a more practical level, it is also true that the collective and cultural character of the group significantly reduces the possibility of moderators ‘leading’ respondents.

Strong arguments in favour of the ‘depth interview’ have also been put as a part of this overall debate. In contrast to group situations, depth interviews offer an in –depth encounter with a consumer whereas any group situation allows relatively little time to explore what individual attitudes, feelings and experiences really are. The crudest calculations allow us to say that a one –to –one interview allows eight times as much time focused on the individual respondent as a group discussion of the same duration with eight respondents. While it is obviously ridiculous to try to apply a precise mathematics like this, the point is nevertheless clear; groups can often compromise individual focus.

The virtues of the depth interview are not solely about time focus. Particularly compelling here has been the proposition that the depth interview is far more appropriate when evaluating how consumers are likely to interpret communications. Here the argument runs that since most communications are received and processed at an individual level and [Page 88] that there may be wide variation in the way in which different consumers process the same messages, the group discussion is a very artificial environment in which to examine the reception and interpretation of such messages(see, for example, Branthwaite and Swindells1995b).

Thus far, the strongest argument for one –to–one interviews appears to be in situations where we need to understand how possible communications are likely to be interpreted or where we need considerable focus upon the individual respondent. Magne Supphellen (2000) has made a strong case arguing precisely this last point. Out of her review of the operation of mind and memory, she suggests that traditional focus groups may be less appropriate for eliciting brand associations because of problems of self –censoring and inadequate time to delve into individual chains of association. From this she draws a number of conclusions for method and technique. These amount to an outline for what we might call a ‘ brand portrait interview ’:

• Multiple techniques should be used because some will be better at drawing out hidden associations, others better at allowing verbalisation and others better at avoiding censoring.
• Techniques should include at least one visual technique, and these should be used before verbal techniques that might ‘frame’ how visuals were seen.
• Techniques should include at least one‘object –projective’ technique (describing the brand as a car, animal, fabric, personality etc.).
• Interviewers should also use ‘person–projective’ techniques where the respondent reports associations from the perspective of some group of which they are a member, e.g. ‘most teenagers’.
• Interviewers should use real stimuli where possible: drink the coffee, show the pack, see the logo, listen to the jingles etc.
• Interviewers should probe for secondary associations using primary associations as start points, e.g. ‘What do you associate with quality?’, so that they can snowball a chain of associations.
• Interviewers should probe from brand situations, i.e. encourage the respondent to free associate around the brand whilst focused upon, for example, a usage situation.
• Interviewers should avoid directly questioning respondents’ emotions, but rather use pre –defined lists of emotions to simplify respondents’ task in finding words to express their feelings.

Although Supphellen (2000) argues these points in connection with one –to –one interviews, they provide equally valid guidance for group sessions. Here many practitioners would argue that many or all of the elements and guidance outlined by Supphellen can be accommodated within various forms of group situation, provided these work within a sufficiently broad time window. In these situations the group can provide the added benefits of group interaction and mutual stimulation, along [Page 89] with the check or challenge of the group's more cultural reference point. Here we have an outline for the brand identity forum , a group–based variant of the brand portrait interview.

Ultimately the arguments arrayed above may show some favour to group situations as mechanisms for exploring many brand issues, but there may be instances in which the particular benefits of one–to –one interviews come to the fore. Undoubtedly the ‘groups versus depths’ debate will continue. The key point in all of this is that in designing research to explore particular issues and meet particular goals we need to be sensitive to the issues involved and the particular needs of the situation. Once again Karl Popper's methodological individualism anticipates this key dimension of qualitative research. The issue to be resolved in any instance is whether the beneficial aspects of groups or depths (or pairs or trios etc.) are most suited to our particular needs at any point in time.

Designing brand research is not simply about deciding whether groups or depths are more appropriate. A whole variety of logistical issues relating to time frame and respondent participation are also relevant here. Within this, time frame issues go well beyond the length or duration of group discussions or depth interviews, although this in itself is a significant issue.

The dominant time frames employed in qualitative research in the UK have become almost enshrined in the proposition that a group discussion lasts 1½ hours and a depth interview 50–60 minutes. The fact that there are different traditions in different countries suggests that there is nothing inevitable about this, it is merely the way that research has evolved to accommodate some of the practicalities of the UK's business and cultural situations. The problem here is that neither of these mechanisms is particularly well suited to brand evaluation or brand development research.

Magne Supphellen (2000) makes a strong case that a one –to –one interview designed to truly identify the breadth, depth and character of brands in a marketplace requires more time than is afforded within a 50 minute or 1 hour interview. Getting inside an individual consumer's own system of needs, wants and priorities, establishing their confidence and trust, getting a feel for how they use language, their reference structures and applying a range of techniques to explore and illuminate different brand identities, takes more time than is afforded by a 1 hour time slot.

In broad terms the same argument applies to the idea of a 1½ hour group discussion focused on brand evaluation or brand development. The classic British discussion group or focus group involving eight respondents and lasting 1½ hours is a vehicle that from the outset is pressed for time. A group discussion requires at least 10 minutes in which [Page 90] to introduce the subject, to explain respondent rights and for respondents to introduce themselves. This would then allow each respondent 10 minutes to talk about how they feel, for example, about brands in the financial services market or all of their formative experiences in the world of fast food. Of course, this is not how group discussions do or should work, but again it does illustrate the point.

Although the 1½ hour group discussion has been the dominant form in qualitative market research in the UK, it has not been the only form. Over time a variety of different time frames and formats has been developed to counter the limitations of the short and sweet focus group. In the 1970s Peter Cooper coined the term ‘Extended Creativity Group’, to describe a 2 ½ to 3 hour duration research group whose focus was the application of a sequence of‘projective and enabling’ techniques designed to penetrate deeper into the consumer mind and the consumer psyche. Following on from such approaches, a variety of different group –based research formats has been developed. At the extreme these can involve whole day research workshops, or even weekend workshops, in which groups of respondents have an extended time opportunity in which to work through a whole series of market and brand evaluation exercises and in which to launch into exploration of ‘blue sky’ scenarios. At the lesser extreme, recognition of the limitations of the 1½ hour group has encouraged greater use of 2 hour duration research groups which can be conducted in pairs, back to back, in an evening, or through the course of a day as necessary.

Again the point here is not that there is some ideal time solution to the problem of brand and brand development research, but merely that it is an issue. Proper exploration of the structure of a marketplace and brand identities within it, i.e.brand evaluation research, is not something that can be meaningfully completed in a 1½ hour focus group with eight respondents. Equally the same applies to issues of needs research and brand development research. All of these require the creation of a sense of relaxed trust and understanding within a group of respondents. There is also a requirement for the development of a purposeful sense of co –operation and the use of a variety of qualitative research techniques (see Chapter 7), both to create this bonding and to generate the information required.

As an adjunct to this whole discussion of the time duration it is also worth noting that there are also issues to do with numbers here. The classic British pattern has been that a group comprises eight respondents. However, there is nothing magical about the number eight. Indeed, this size of group is conducive to a number of classic research moderation problems. A group of eight people (nine including the moderator) is not a natural social setting, whereas, a group of say five or six is more natural. Nine people cannot interact easily as a group with all nine being fully engaged and involved. This sets up a situation in which some respondents compete for time and attention whilst others withdraw, becoming the ‘quiet ones’. Running research groups with slightly fewer than ‘normal’ [Page 91] numbers of respondents allows all of those respondents to become more involved in and engaged with the research process. These slightly smaller groups also allow the moderator more time to understand more about where respondents are coming from and require less focus of effort in controlling the group and involving the ‘excluded’respondents. Alternatively, many of the workshop approaches identified above have employed larger numbers of consumers participating (e.g. 12, 14,16 and sometimes 20+) by using multiple moderators working as a team and conducting a variety of group workshop and syndicate sessions.

Again, the point here is that there is no ideal number for any form of market research group focused on brand evaluation and development. The key point is that the numbers must be constituted in such a way as to be manageable and to allow the moderators to provide effective guidance through the research process.

Issues of sampling exist across the board in qualitative market research and are by no means specific to branding or brand development research. Sampling issues are dealt with in more detail elsewhere in this series (see Book 1). However, some brief review of the ways in which sampling issues can impact upon branding and brand development research is worthwhile.

The establishment of various demographic criteria by which qualitative research samples are structured is typically a standard part of any qualitative research design process. Here all manner of sample criteria may or may not be relevant; age, sex, socioeconomic grade, life stage, occupation, location and so on. In some respects these sample elements can be simply about practicalities – for example, where group discussions are used as a method it is important that the group can ‘gel’ and get along. This may mean that different age groups cannot be mixed;for example, mixing 18 –year –olds with 30 –year–olds is likely to create awkward dynamics on most subjects. Demographic differences may also be more or less significant depending upon the subject matter or market area under discussion. Most obviously here there can be significant gender differences in some markets, such as cars or beer.

In brand or brand development research it is also often crucial to construct an appropriate sample using brand or product usage criteria. Again there are no hard and fast rules, but there will always be value in asking what is best for the needs of the project and to structure the sample appropriately. Here there will be a need to consider recruitment on the basis of participation in the category. For example, developing branding for a range of new male fragrances do we need to focus upon regular and occasional users of existing products (probably we should), but do we also include those who are lapsed users and those who are non –users? Inclusion or exclusion of particular groups of people from the early stages of brand [Page 92] development research can mean that potential market opportunities are never identified because the research never gave itself the chance to do so. Likewise there are issues in constructing samples which are to do with the patterns of brand/product usage; answering questions such as do we focus on those who appear habitually loyal to particular brands (and thus might in turn become ‘loyal’ to our brand if we could convert them)? Or should we focus more upon those who appear more promiscuous in their brand behaviour (who are likely to be easy to convert but hard to hold onto)? In researching established brands there are also clearly issues about whether recruitment focuses upon existing brand users:regular, occasional, lapsed, rejecters, or similar varieties of users of competing brands.

The various demographic and brand usage issues outlined above are primarily focused on ensuring that research samples recruit people with appropriate product or market experience that will be useful to the research results. Here we are not focused on creating a representative sample; this is not the qualitative enterprise. What we are concerned with, however, is ensuring that the main dimensions that might cause difference of perspective are at least represented within the overall sample. At this general level all of the above sampling issues are about getting the right representation within the sample.

Beyond this issue of representation, there is a further and fundamental sampling issue for branding and brand development research. This is about the utility or the usefulness of the consumers recruited to the particular task in hand. It is here that sampling begins to embrace a whole new set of criteria. Here the issues are about recruiting consumers who are more likely to be useful in helping the researcher to achieve the research objectives. Here the research might seek to select consumers on various attitudinal, motivational, behavioural or experiential criteria. For example, in developing a consumer electronics brand we might seek to recruit consumers on attitudinal dimensions establishing how far they were ‘into technology’. In developing a new upmarket fashion range we might recruit consumers on a range of motivational statements reflecting how ‘status driven’ they were. In seeking to launch an entirely new brand and establish an initial‘toehold’ for it in a marketplace we might look to recruit target consumers on a behavioural basis identifying them as ‘early adopters’. In seeking to develop the imagery of a business airline we might seek to recruit on the basis of relative experience and expertise in long distance business travel (Phillips 2001).

INVOLVEMENT OR INTERFACE RESEARCH

The classic approach in qualitative consumer research keeps client and consumer apart, or at least separates them with a one –way mirror or a [Page 93] video monitor. This separation is not necessary or inevitable. We have talked elsewhere of the benefits of changing the relationships within research (Chandler and Owen 1998). David Spenser has been one of a number of advocates of a style of work in which clients and consumers are brought closer together and has noted that this style is developing some momentum:

A range of different approaches, branded as‘brain banks’, ‘super groups’, ‘ideas workshops’,‘sequential recycling’, ‘dialogue teams’,‘breakthroughs’, have already been developed by leading practitioners in this field. They have used different terminology and branding, but all these methods involve a shift from using research to find out about the consumer to using research as a means of managing clients and consumers working together in order to move forward together. (Spenser and Wells 2000: 248)

Over time a variety of these approaches has been used. The uniting principle of all of these has been the creation of a more direct interface between the consumer and client. This can involve changing the relationships between researcher, consumer and client as well as changing the timelines of research. This can mean, for example, building methodologies around reconvened groups so that one phase of a brand development project can roll into another, taking advantage of the heightened sensitivity that is built up in carefully selected consumers after a first phase.

There is a variety of different ways of organising these higher ‘involvement’ or‘interface’ approaches. It remains an open question as to whether, for example, ‘sequential recycling’ or ‘breakthrough’ or ‘dialogue teams’or any other variant is more or less appropriate to any particular problem. Perhaps more important than any of the individual variants within this style of approach is the range of problems and issues which they appear to be trying to address:

• In attempting to reduce the distance between the consumer and the brand owner research presents an opportunity to allow clients a greater involvement in the real world and real lives of consumers and what brands mean to them and the ways in which this meaning is conveyed, carried and interpreted.
• Conversely, some of these ‘interface’approaches endeavour to more actively involve and engage consumers in marketing issues. On occasion this may involve nothing more than adopting a philosophical position of ‘honesty’ with consumers, informing them of the real character of marketing problems or issues and simply seeing whether this enables them to provide some additional insight. In other instances this can mean their fuller absorption in marketing issues over time, so that carefully selected respondents can actually become members or quasi members of the problem team.

Finally, more recent attempts to gain additional insights through breaking out of the time –honoured strait –jacket of ‘standard groups and depths’ have involved something of a return to the anthropological roots of research. Approaches that have been variously dubbed ‘consumer ethnography’ and ‘observation research’ do it differently by trying to get further inside and more fully inside the life world of the individual consumer (see Desai, Book 3).

RESEARCH INPUT AND OUTPUT

There is a variety of ways in which the skills and experience of qualitative researchers are used in developing brands that go beyond the confines of research itself. Here we enter into the territory of the researcher as consultant. Whilst it is not within the remit of this book to enter into the area of brand consultancy, there are nevertheless some aspects of consulting which can have a direct impact on brand research and where the researcher can play a crucial role. Specifically there are roles that the researcher can play in organising and developing research inputs and in aiding the progression of research outputs.

Designing qualitative brand research is not simply about determining how many groups or depths will happen with whom, it is also about helping in the development of appropriate stimulus materials. At various stages in the brand development research process it will be desirable and even necessary to feed specific inputs into the research. This is particularly so as research moves beyond more exploratory stages and into the development and evaluation of different brand/product offerings. Here stimulus materials might take a variety of different forms, for example, and most obviously:

• Mood boards: a collage of visuals which attempt to reflect a range a different emotional tones and themes which a brand might try to capture.
• Concept boards: written statements which try to project some sense of the underlying nature of the intended brand and some of its key elements or characteristics.

The performance of such materials in research –whether they ‘win’ and whether they are useful in creating responses that tell us something about where a brand could or should go – is influenced by three things:

• The virtue or value of the underlying ‘idea’itself.
• The degree to which the stimulus manages to capture or reflect the underlying ‘idea’ without setting up dissonant resonances.
• How and how well the material is presented and managed in the research situation.

The last point is an issue of interviewing and moderation skills, a crucial and massive issue which is addressed elsewhere in this series(Chrzanowska, Book 2). The second point is an issue of research design.

Experienced researchers carry with them a stock of covert knowledge about how respondents tend to react to materials presented in research. This‘knowledge’ has been built up out of the everyday experience of how consumers tend to respond to different types and styles of material in the research setting. For example, if consumers are presented with written concepts and/or propositions, which contain language and phrasing that is somehow reminiscent of advertising, they will tend to respond to it as if it were advertising. This may be fine if our interest is in identifying appropriate language for the sales situation, but it is a problem if our goal is the exploration of an underlying brand or product idea; in this instance language becomes the enemy of communication.

Here the key point is that researchers can and should have an active role in consulting upon the process of stimulus development. Whilst it is not necessarily the role of researchers to develop stimuli in terms of brand propositions, they can have a crucial role in advising on the optimum means of presenting these – their overall structure, make –up, use of language and so on. There is room here for the development of formal guidelines about concept presentation that brand researchers can provide to clients and their agencies.

At the early stages of brand development this assistance with input can be more than simply advising on structure, language and so on. The researcher's moderation skills can be used in‘brainstorming’ sessions with client and agency personnel to aid in the initial generation and formulation of brand ideas. At the output end of research the same skills can be applied to help clients and their agencies formulate the new or revised brand. Most obviously this applies to the formulation of a brand model. Ideally the development of the brand model needs to be a collective process in which key representatives of interested parties are involved. If for no other reason, this is necessary to establish buy –in and commitment from all concerned. The central involvement of the researcher in this process is advisable because they, more than any other, can provide a direct reference to the world of the consumer.

Moreover, such is the nature of today's marketing environment that the researcher is often the person most consistently involved with a brand over a period of time. We touched on the potential limitations imposed upon brand managers in Chapter3, and we should perhaps heed Udo Reuter's advice when he says

I recommend you to keep a ‘history book’ of your own brand and take good care of it, as it was common practice in former times. A tangible book that allows to follow all stages of brand development with figures, documentation of pack designs and advertising, and with stories of successful [Page 96] and unsuccessful line extensions and other marketing measures … This book should be compulsory for everyone taking care of the brand today and in the future. (Reuter1993: 25)

The way in which qualitative research is structured can affect both the quality and depth of the information which it generates:

• A variety of different basic structures can be employed in qualitative research, e.g. groups versus depths. There is no perfect structural approach here. The virtues of different approaches need to be weighed against the needs of a project.
• Logistical or time issues in qualitative research are often not given adequate consideration. Often sessions are too short to achieve sufficient depth, often groups are too large to create the optimum working environment.
• Sampling for any project needs to be appropriate and will impact upon results.
• There is a growing role for more direct and on –going client involvement in the research process.
• Researchers could take a more active consultancy role in the development of stimulus material and in the use that is made of research results.

Research and the Brand Development Process

The Content of Brand Research

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day free trial, more like this, sage recommends.

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

• Sign in/register

Navigating away from this page will delete your results

Please save your results to "My Self-Assessments" in your profile before navigating away from this page.

Sign in to my profile

Please sign into your institution before accessing your profile

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Learning Resources have to offer.

You must have a valid academic email address to sign up.

Get off-campus access

• View or download all content my institution has access to.

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Learning Resources has to offer.

• view my profile
• view my lists