My skepticism is aimed at the folks who attend those ARF leadership meetings. The ones I know personally ... when they come back to their organizations they don't know how to turn those keywords into actions ... and nothing gets done.
Joel is saying the rights things, now that message needs to translate into actions, and that's the point where we usually fall flat on our faces.
Speaking of the ARF, this may be a bit off topic, but I've been both following this issue and your blog and I wanted to share this and get an opinion.
The following is an excerpt from a a publication my boss gets called Research Business Report, which he passed through the department this morning so that we could all see this: _________________________________ Transparency? Results of ARF’s first Foundations of Quality study will be released April 3 in one of the 55th annual convention’s closing concurrent session, but it won’t link specific names of participating online panels with study findings. A March 2nd ARF website posting (later removed) said “private” meetings would be held in March with project participants and supporters (each signing non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements) “given the sensitive nature of the data” and to “carefully prepare the industry for the first public presentation.” ___________________________________ Our company has been trying to push the data quality issue forward, but without much success. We were hoping the ARF's study would lead to some industrywide transparency and accountability, but this doesn't seem to bode well for that.
I am the growing multitude of people in the Market Research industry who have realized that the status quo is obsolete, and we face a choice between evolution and extinction.
3 comments:
Mr.H
I know this is off topic but you should read this http://www.thearf.org/assets/feature-marketing-research-imperative.
This is the second time I have been shilling for ARF on here. And I'm not even a member! But this does echo your sentiments.
@Robin
I did. It does.
My skepticism is aimed at the folks who attend those ARF leadership meetings. The ones I know personally ... when they come back to their organizations they don't know how to turn those keywords into actions ... and nothing gets done.
Joel is saying the rights things, now that message needs to translate into actions, and that's the point where we usually fall flat on our faces.
Speaking of the ARF, this may be a bit off topic, but I've been both following this issue and your blog and I wanted to share this and get an opinion.
The following is an excerpt from a a publication my boss gets called Research Business Report, which he passed through the department this morning so that we could all see this:
_________________________________
Transparency? Results of ARF’s first Foundations of Quality study will be released April 3 in one of the 55th annual convention’s closing concurrent session, but it won’t link specific names of participating online panels with study findings. A March 2nd ARF website posting (later removed) said “private” meetings would be held in March with project participants and supporters (each signing non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements) “given the sensitive nature of the data” and to “carefully prepare the industry for the first public presentation.”
___________________________________
Our company has been trying to push the data quality issue forward, but without much success. We were hoping the ARF's study would lead to some industrywide transparency and accountability, but this doesn't seem to bode well for that.
Post a Comment