Field Trips from Another Perspective

My Views of September 3, 1995, " Field Trips," stimulated a conversation with a good friend and colleague about another type of field trip. My friend was telling me about his most embarrassing client interaction. It seems that he was asked to put together a series of focus groups among users of his client's brands. Very quickly he found out that the recruiting he contracted through a field service, left a lot to be desired. While sitting behind the mirror with the clients, his worst dreams became a reality. When the moderator asked why one of the respondents used the client's brand, she replied that the recruiter told her she could be invited to a focus group and receive $25 if she would purchase the specific brand. This is a good example of a recruiter making unwise decisions to achieve the required base. This was also a good, but costly, learning experience. His client no longer requests his services.

My friend's experience brought to mind how this type of problem can occur even in the most unlikely places. Of particular note was the experiences of another friend a long time ago when door-to-door research was the common practice. His company was noted for having a very strong in-house, field force of interviewers. The company's employment practice was to have all new market research managers spend 12 months in the field interviewing. In his very first field experience, he met with five field interviewers at the hotel to review the current week's task. He was told that it was the common practice to meet in the bar at the end of each day for drinks and that the person with the lowest number of completed interviews for that day bought the first round of drinks. He bought the drinks the first three days. On the fourth day, he decided that he was not going to have the fewest number of completes four days in a row. He got an early start but when he got to his area of the city, he found that he had forgotten some of his equipment and had to go back to the hotel. Upon arriving, he noted that the cars of the other interviewers were still in the parking lot. He picked up his equipment and went about his interviewing for the day. At the end of the day, he again had to buy the drinks. On the fifth day, he again went into the field but returned to the hotel two hours later and again found the cars. He marked the tires and went back to work. Later that day he found that the cars had not been moved all day. He reported the incident to his management and they investigated. They determined that the experienced, full-time interviewers of the company were faking interviews.

The above case is real. It did happen. It led to a massive termination and it resulted in a major change in how things were done in the department. (Not many in the company management ever became aware of these events for obvious reasons.) While the above case is obvious fraud and a rare exception, I believe that problems of the first case occur with the best of intentions but with a lack of appreciation of the importance of the sample.

I have found that it pays to audit the field work, build in checks for accurate completion of the task and also never put the field in a situation where they feel that they cannot achieve the objectives without taking shortcuts.

Note: As of March 25, 1996, Elrick & Lavidge will no longer be sponsoring my Views. I will however, continue as a consultant for E&L.

Herb Sorensen of Sorensen Associates Inc has agreed to the sponsorship of the Views. At a future date, I will be writing about Herb and his Company. They are very interesting and unique in the field of consumer research. About a year ago a friend mentioned to Herb that he should get in touch with me because of my interest in In-Store research which is Herb's specialty. More on Sorensen Associates Inc in the future.