Marketing Research I

In te rn a tio n a l J o u rn a l o f M a rk e t Research Vol. 58 Issue 4

The declining use o f the term market research An empirical analysis

Daniel Nunan Birkbeck, University o f London

This paper analyses the use of the term ‘market research’ in a contemporary context. Although the term is well established as an industry definition, its use and meaning have become increasingly contested. This study brings together empirical data from a range of sources that reflect key stakeholders within the market research sector. Findings suggest that the term ‘market research’ has become increasingly marginalised amongst these key stakeholders. Few of the leading research firms use this term to describe their core activity, and data suggest that wider use of the term has declined over the past decade. Where ‘market research’ is used, the term is typically demoted to describing a set of skills rather than a strategic concept around adding value. A number of explanations for this are explored, including isomorphism among research firms, the role of research in generating value, and the broader economic context in which research takes place. Finally, the paper considers whether continuing use of the term is beneficial to the future success of the research sector.

Introduction Reflection on the state and future of the field is a common characteristic across professions. Indeed, writers on the sociology of the professions have noted that the strength of a profession can be measured by the extent to which it debates its own existence (Freidson 2001). For example, while medicine is typically considered the archetypal profession, books predicting the decline of its professional status remain bestsellers among members of the medical profession (e.g. Tallis 2004; Le Fanu 2011). Although the debate within market research has not yet reached this level

Received (in revised form): 14 January 2016

© 2016 The Market Research Society 50 3 DOI: 10.2501/IJMR-2016-031

T he d e c lin in g use o f th e te rm m a rk e t research

of reflexivity there is an ongoing tradition of evaluating the state of the profession. This includes concerns over the relationship between academic and practitioner market researchers (Boddy & Croft 2007), the impact of new technology (Cooke &c Buckley 2008) and a lack of impact of research among clients (Lewis 2012). However, there is nothing new about this self-evaluation, nor are the themes that are being evaluated new within the market research literature. Reviewing journals from 70 years ago a similar set of issues emerge. These include concerns over the shortage of suitably qualified people entering the field of market research (Arnold 1947), precipitous declines in response rates and quality (Warrington 1940), and questions over whether researchers are focusing on the most important and relevant problems of the day (Hirose 1945). Of course, the contexts of these concerns were very different. Warrington was concerned that it was no longer possible to achieve 90% response rates on survey, while Hirose highlighted the needs of researchers to address the reality of the post-war economy.

This paper follows in the tradition of such analysis, but addresses a question that is central to the concept of market research yet has evaded recent study: how is the term ‘market research’ itself used? To be clear, the paper does not seek to call into question the future of research itself. Collecting, analysing and understanding customer data, whatever it is labelled, has become a key part of contem porary corporate strategy. Beyond this there has been increased interest from government in the potential of data as a tool through which to gain economic advantage. All these trends suggest that, to borrow the tagline of the M arket Research Society, more people than ever believe that evidence matters. Rather, the purpose of this paper is to study in a very specific way the use and meaning of the term ‘market research’. The paper does not seek to be an opinion piece, but serves as an empirically informed analysis of the concept of market research in 2016. As the MRS approaches its 70th anniversary, and in the light of the significant changes that have been encountered within the research world over the past decade, there is considerable merit in visiting the question. While analysing the label used to describe an industry may seem unim portant, or even indulgent, what we call ourselves has a key role in the development of professional identify. As such, any mismatch between the work that researchers undertake and the labels ascribed to the profession are likely to impact upon this identity (Pratt et al. 2006).

This paper is structured as follows. First, an overview of the varying current and historical uses of the term market research is provided. Second,

5 0 4

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 58 Issue 4

analysis of data from a range of research stakeholders is used to map the current usage of the term. Finally, a number of potential explanations and implications for these findings are presented.

W h a t d o w e m ean w h en w e say m a rk e t research?

It is a characteristic of the history of commerce that the historical narrative stretches back only a little further than personal memories. In one sense the professional history of market research could be defined by the establishment of professional associations such as the MRS and ESOMAR in the late 1940s. However, the term market research was already in wide enough use in 1950 for a history to be published in the Journal o f Marketing (Lockley 1950), which was then, and arguably still is now, one of the leading marketing journals. This paper identified that opinion polls in the US can be traced back to the 1820s and that questionnaires were being widely used to gauge consumer opinions of advertising as early as the 1890s. In terms of a more formal acceptance of market research as a field, rather than of use of specific techniques, Lockley notes that, ‘It was not until 1910 that evidences of market research become frequent enough to indicate that a new field of business activity had made a serious start. The idea of what later was called market research became endemic to the period between 1910 and 1920 (1950, p. 733).

There is some agreement (Blankenship 1949; Lockley 1950) that, for practical purposes, the market research sector was well established by the early 1930s. Despite the very limited number of marketing journals being published at the time there were more than 150 articles discussing either market research or marketing research published between 1930 and 1950, reflecting the centrality of the term to marketing thought. Inevitably, there soon emerged a discussion over the definition of terms, and the difference between market research and marketing research, as well as the difference between a survey-research firm and market-research firm. Blankenship questioned the need for so many definitions due to the risk of confusing research users: ‘let’s give the businessman some simple definition of marketing research which he can use with full understanding’ (1949, p. 305). This is evidently a debate that has yet to be resolved, with much the same sentiment being communicated by Poynter (2014) more than 60 years later when he argues that, in practical terms, they mean the same thing. Unfortunately for Poynter, and perhaps common sense, at the time of writing there are more than 5,000 websites claiming to provide some form of clarification of the definition of the two terms.

5 0 5

The declining use of the term market research

Definitions typically suggest that marketing research is a broader term implying understanding of customers that happens within organisations and marketing functions. One the other hand, market research is a more macro analysis reflecting work done by research firms. It is notable that while professional associations, such as the AMA or ESOMAR, provide their own (lengthy) definitions, these seem designed more as a means of marking professional territory than providing clarity to researchers or users of research. In practice the delineation might also be as much a difference between the use of market research in the UK and marketing research in the US.

In the late 1990s an additional term, ‘insight’, began to emerge in the literature, both in addition to and as an alternative to market research. This can be seen as a response to the need to generate greater influence among stakeholders, particular among senior management. The term customer insight emerged not from the field of market research but from the emerging field of customer relationship management (Hirschowitz 2001), where proponents were aware that they needed to sell both the technology and the benefits it would bring to the bottom line. Its adoption by market researchers can be related to the declining influence of the marketing function within marketing as a whole since the 1990s. In an influential paper, Webster et al. (2005) highlight the scope of the problem: ‘many elements of the central marketing function have been “centrifuged” outward and embedded in functions as diverse as field sales and product engineering that are closer to customers. Today, marketing in many large companies is less of a department and more a diaspora of skills and capabilities spread across and even outside the organization.’

Thus, as marketing transforms from a function to a set of skills, so market research becomes pushed further from the centre of decision making. The clients for market research become more detached from the core decision-making process, putting the onus on market research organisations to demonstrate their value more clearly. However, the definition of customer insight as ‘knowledge about the customer that is valuable for the firm’ (Smith et al. 2006) is a broad one and market research becomes just one of many sources of data that can be used as part of the process of generating insight (Said et al. 2015).

Method To analyse the use of the term ‘market research’ I looked for data representing views of a number of stakeholders. Such key stakeholder

506

I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f M a r k e t R e s e a r c h V o l. 5 8 Is s u e 4

groups are identified as market research firms, professional bodies, academic researchers and the more general public perception of research. Although clients are clearly a valuable stakeholder group, they were not included in this selection due to lack of availability of suitable data sources. Having said that, it is possible to infer some of the client position through analysis of data on research firms. In terms of time period, the focus of the report was on data from the beginning of 2005 to the end of 2015. There is also an advantage in terms of method as this encompasses the period for which reliable data are available from internet sources. Data were gathered from the sources described below.

Analysis o f industry league table data

First, the most recently available league table from the MRS at the time of analysis (January 2016) was used.1 An alternative source would have been the American Marketing Association Top 50 global market research firms table, but in choosing the MRS table the study was able to apply a consistent analysis on a single country. A comparison of the data from the UK firms in the AMA table shows that the reported earnings are similar. The MRS league tables contain both ‘largest’ and ‘fastest growing’ and, within these categories, there are two further divisions into ‘consolidated’ and ‘individual agencies’. This reflects the nature of business models with the marketing services sector where agencies are often part of a group ownership structure under larger holding companies. Given the mix of companies, these league tables present an inevitable compromise in drawing a line between individual and parent ownership. Given the complexity of this exercise the question of parent company is not always consistent. For example, the parent company of Millward Brown is listed as Kantar rather than WPP, while Ipsos is not listed as the parent of Ipsos MORI. More pragmatically, Tesco is not listed as the parent company of dunnhumby. This creates another challenge in that UK-located, or focused, firms may carry out overseas work from their UK offices. Nevertheless, the MRS league table can be regarded as the closest thing to a definitive account of firm size that is available within the UK market, and similarities with the similar AMA league table can be taken as an indicator of reliability.

To ensure the maximum value of findings in this study, both the parent company and individual agency rankings were analysed. For example, it might be expected that market research could exist as a business unit within

1 The MRS 2014 Research and Insight Industry League Tables UK, compiled in October 2015.

5 0 7

T he d e c lin in g use o f th e te r m m a rk e t research

a larger firm, therefore the individual agency rankings would contain firms that make far more use of the term market research. On the other hand, as the larger list is more comprehensive it could be seen as being a more accurate reflection of the overall market.

The consolidated league table contains 86 firms with revenue ranging from £3.2 million to £464 million, while the independent firm table contains 50 firms with revenue ranging from £11.2 million to £227 million. For the purposes of this study we analysed the 50 largest firms in the consolidated league table as these provided nearly 95% of all revenue from the group of firms on the list.

For each of these firms’ public-facing websites the following were analysed:

• presence of the term ‘market research’ in a description of the firm in the page title (i.e. the text that shows in search results) or on the home page

• presence of the term ‘market research’ in description of the companies’ core activities on an ‘about’ page, or similar page explaining core company activities

• presence of the term ‘market research’ in a business unit or set of product offerings

• alternative phrases used instead of, or in addition to, market research to describe core business activities.

A n a lysis o f use o f a c a d e m ic lite ra tu re o n m a rk e t research

To analyse the academic research there are a number of challenges in identifying the boundaries of the data set. For example, there is the question of what counts as academic research. This would normally be defined as including articles in peer reviewed journals, but there are also the cases of working papers, books, monographs, conference proceedings and the grey literature. In going back over historical data there is a further challenge in that both the volume and coverage of academic literature within online databases has changed significantly over the past ten years. For example, while the Google Scholar service contains a probably unmatched database of recent academic publications it has a bias towards publication formats that are available publicly and online, increasing the volume of publications in recent years. This is compounded by the large increase in the number of academic publications within the field of management, many of which lack effective peer review or quality control - often described as predatory journals.

5 0 8

In tern ation al Journal o f M arket Research Vol. 58 Issue 4

Judging the academic use of ‘market research’ also required access to a number of granular search options. Simply searching for the term ‘market research’ within the text of papers would not be effective as the term is likely to appear in the context of many discussions around marketing. It might also appear as a citation to a journal that has ‘market research’ in the title. On the other hand, simply searching for the term in the title would be insufficient as not all the subject keywords relevant to the paper need to be in the title.

To effectively address these issues, the EBSCO Business Source Complete database was used. This is a widely used database of business and professional articles that indexes more than 5,000 business journals. While not as broad as Google Scholar it provides a range of advanced search capabilities and also contains appropriate metadata, allowing searches within specific sections of the article such as title or abstract. For each year from 2005 to 2015 the total number of articles featuring the term ‘market research’ in either the abstract or title were selected. Only English-language articles were selected, although in practice only a very small number of articles were published in languages other than English given the focus on publishing in English within the international marketing literature. Finally, only articles that were published in peer reviewed journals were selected.

Analysis o f public search trends

Analysis of search trends gives some measure of the popularity of a concept, although actual search volume data are closely guarded by search companies. However, Google provides a means of getting a close approximation of this data through its Google Trends tool. Google Trends is a web service that provides some estimation of the volume of search terms on the Google Search Engine over time. Two caveats needed to be provided with use of this data. First, only a normalised value is provided, giving a number that reflects a proportion of searches over time rather than an absolute value. This is important as the value for a particular search term may fall over time even if the absolute number of searches increases, due to an increase in overall search volumes. Second, when searching for the term ‘market research’, some form of fuzzy matching is provided within the algorithm to associate misspelling and synonyms with the term. As such, Google Trends also provides some contextual information when searching for words to ensure that an appropriate match is found. In this case two categories were returned: ‘market research’ [search term] and ‘market research’ [industry]. Both terms were therefore used in this analysis.

5 0 9

The declining use o f the term market research

Issues in analysis o f historical data

The challenge of longitudinal analysis is in controlling for the many significant variables that could have influenced the analysis. While longitudinal data were available for the analysis of publications and search trends, it was not possible to analyse information available on market research company websites. Although services such as the Internet Archive enable the access of historical information, data on many firms is missing or incomplete. With changes in ownership, rebranding and technical changes to websites, the availability of sufficiently comparable data was seen as too limited to allow for this analysis.

Findings

Analysis o f leading firms

While summary data are contained in this section the full data set of firms listed and analysis of the core characteristics stated previously are contained in Appendix 1 (consolidated data set) and Appendix 2 (individual agency data set). Table 1 shows the percentage of firms in the list for which the term market research featured on the appropriate corporate website in relation to the criteria. An additional set of data is given in the fourth column, showing the percentage of ‘Top 5 0 ’ research firms that use the term market research in a context that meets any of the criteria. One unexpected result was that the term market research was slightly more likely to be used on the websites of parent or holding companies than those of individual agencies. One explanation for this is that holding company sites are more likely to be orientated towards a different set of stakeholders, e.g. job seekers and investors rather than potential clients and customers.

T a b le 1 Usage o f th e te rm 'm a rk e t research' b y le a d in g firm s

% o f firm s in % o f firm s in C o n s o lid a te d Table In d iv id u a l T a ble

C riteria (n = 50 ) (n = 50 )

Presence o f th e te rm 'm a rke t research'in a d e scription o f th e firm on th e title page o r hom e page

28 32

Presence o f th e te rm on a b o u t/c o re a ctivities page 30 24

Presence o f th e te rm in p ro d u c t d e scription 34 30

Presence o f th e te rm in any o f the above criteria 56 50

5 1 0

Intern ation al Journal o f M arket Research Vol. 58 Issue 4

These data provide only a partial picture in that they measure the presence or absence of the use of ‘market research’ in certain contexts. Taking the most positive view, around half of firms use the term market research in some context to describe the activities of their firm. Bearing in mind an uneven distribution of revenue between firms, Table 2 indicates the distribution if weighted for company size.

Although there is some variance within results, the data could be summarised by saying that around half of the leading market research firms do not mention the term market research in a core way on their website. Additionally, no more than a third of leading firms, representing perhaps one-fifth of sector revenue, make prominent use of the term market research. However, it is necessary to acknowledge that, on its own, this is a crude classification. By looking simply at mentions of the term ‘market research’, the context in which the term was used is not captured, nor is the frequency of use.

Additional analysis was carried out to dig deeper into these findings. Individual firms are not highlighted as it is not the intent of this paper to ‘call out’ firms for the way in which the term ‘market research’ is used. First, for those firms that did not meet any of the criteria, a more general search (using the Google site, Search Operator) was carried out to find out if the term appeared anywhere on their site. For all but three firms the term was identified on the website, and in the cases where it was not this is most likely to be a technical restriction where the full content of the site was not indexable, rather than a reflection of site content. Where market research was mentioned it appeared in three categories, all of which were secondary to the core services provided by the firm:

1. in the context of detailing the Market Research Society Code of Conduct in the terms and conditions or other ‘small print’

T a b le 2 Usage o f th e te r m 'm a r k e t re s e a rc h 'b y le a d in g firm s (w e ig h te d fo r re venue)

% of firms % o f firms in turnover in

Consolidated Table Individual Table Criteria (n = 50) (n = 50) Presence o f th e te rm 'm a rke t research'in a d e scription o f th e firm on th e title page o r ho m e page

26% (£642m) 40% (£925m)

Presence o f th e te rm on a b o u t/c o re a ctivitie s page 21% (£539m) 22% (£500m) Presence o f th e te rm in p ro d u c t d e scription 27% (£625m) 28% (£650m) Presence o f th e te rm in any o f the above criteria 41% (£1035m) 54% (£1.255bn)

511

The declining use o f the term market research

2. in the context of a press release or announcement about being nominated for or winning a Market Research Society or other sector award

3. in the context of a job advertisement where prior skills in market research had been identified as part of the requirement for a role.

Second, for those firms where market research was mentioned, the prominence or circumstances where it was mentioned were analysed. Of the 17 firms that met the first criteria of appearing on the home or title page, only seven used the term market research in the title or meta-data rather than being visible. This suggests that the use of the phrase market research was for the purposes of search engine ranking and optimisation rather than a key description of business. Similarly, of the 17 firms that used the term market research in their ‘about’ page or as a product description, in only eight cases was it used as a primary identifier of the firm’s business.

Finally, we present a summary set of phrases that are used on websites as alternatives to the term market research (Table 3). A number of duplicates have been removed from this list.

Table 3 D escriptions o f core business a ctivity

Research, data and insight

Commercial intelligence, research and consulting Customer science

Business intelligence Technology research

Intelligence and analytics Marketing analytics

Analytics and advice Market insights and intelligence

Strategic insight

Social research

Understanding o f consumer decision making

Generating insight Insight Research Consumer insight Emerging markets research

Survey research Market intelligence

Customer experience

Usage o f the term in academic research

The data from use of the term in academic research are highlighted in Figure 1. This chart provides data on peer-reviewed articles that were published between 2005 and 2015. Although this shows a slight upward trend, it can be explained by an increase in the publication frequency of the International Journal o f Market Research. In most years the range of publication is between 80 and 100 articles, representing a total of 980 articles over the period. Through this 11-year period, 166 articles (17% of

51 2

International Journal o f Market Research Vol. 58 Issue 4

137.5

110

Figure 1 Number o f articles published in academic journals that feature the term 'market research'(or equivalent) in the title

the total) were published in the International Journal o f Market Research and, with the exception of Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal (19 articles), the remaining articles were spread across more than 100 journals, most with fewer than five articles published in each. While the search database allowed for the selection of content that appeared only in peer reviewed journals, it did not have the ability to delineate between peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed sections of articles. As a result much editorial, book review and non peer-reviewed content, such as ‘viewpoint’ articles, are also included, inflating the count. More than half of the articles assigned to the International Journal o f Market Research are in this category. This issue did not appear to impact other journals. As with the analysis of text on company websites a challenge was created where the presence of text does not necessarily infer the same meaning of text. For example, many of the papers published used the term ‘market research’ in the abstract even though the paper was tangential to the subject matter of market research, suggesting that it was a strategic choice to signal to an editor the relevance of the paper to their journal. One final piece of additional analysis was the number of articles with the term market research in the title, the total coming to 132 over the 11-year period. Of these articles, 47 were published

5 1 3

The d e c lin in g use o f th e te rm m a rk e t research

in the two ‘main’ market research journals, International Journal o f Market Research and Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, with the remaining number spread across a large number of journals, most with no more than one or two publications per journal.

Overall, this suggests that the use of the term ‘market research’ within academic research has been relatively static over the past decade and concentrated within the two journals that have the phrase ‘market research’ in their titles. While the number of articles appears steady in absolute terms this should be seen in the context of the relatively small number of articles published that have market research as a core premise in their titles (c.10 per year, not dissimilar to the number published in the 1940s) and the very large increase in the number of management journals over this period. For example, the Association o f Business Schools Academic Journal Quality Guide increased the number of journals it ranked by 88% from 745 in 2010 to 1,401 in 2015 (ABS 2015). In addition to this, there are many thousands of ‘unranked’ and lower-quality journals. This suggests that the numbers presented above should be seen in the context of the many tens of thousands of articles published in management journals each year. In other words, in terms of academic publishing, market research as a distinct focus can be seen as an increasingly niche activity.

Search trend analysis

Trend analysis from Google Trends is shown in Figure 2. The solid line refers to searches for the specific term ‘market research’, while the dashed line refers to the more general category of market research [industry] that matches similar search terms. While absolute data aren’t provided, the numbers for relative interest can be determined, with the market research industry at 100 in February 2005 and 17 in December 2015, meaning that relative search interest in December 2015 was approximately one-fifth of that ten years previously.2

As the data are relative, a more useful comparison might be with some similar terms. For the purposes of comparison we also present a second graph (Figure 3), for the terms ‘analytics’ (in solid tint) and ‘Big Data’ (in dashed tint).

Although caution must be exercised, given the lack of absolute data, this does give some indication of a significant, relative decline in the use of the term market research in searches.

2 Data from this search can be generated from the Google Trends site at www.google.co.uk/trends.

5 1 4

Intern ation al Journal o f M arket Research Vol. 58 Issue 4

« /\

Figure 2 G o o g le T r e n d s a n a ly s is o f t h e t e r m m a r k e t re s e a rc h

Figure 3 G o o g le T r e n d s c o m p a r a t iv e a n a ly s is

Discussion Overall the findings point to a picture where the majority of firms in the study, at least when communicating to external stakeholders, seek to define themselves as something other than a market research firm. The question is, why? The data suggest that this trend is unambiguous, but it is also something that has emerged rather than been planned. As the purpose of this paper is to generate discussion rather than to pass judgement on the way that firms describe their business activity, a number of potential suggestions are now proposed.

Isomorphism

Isomorphism (Di Maggio & Powell 1983) refers to the phenomenon whereby pressures within industries cause firms within the same industry to adopt similar behaviours. In this study the use of data from websites

5 1 5

The declining use o f the term market research

shows only one aspect of the way in which firms wish to portray themselves and, as we are not dealing with e-commerce firms, the customer relationship is likely to be primarily formed by other types of face-to-face interaction. Therefore, the website could be seen as performing a signalling role whereby smaller firms mimic the language and tone of larger firms in order to demonstrate that they are competitive. Such techniques have been shown to have an important role in the way that the positioning of firms is judged (Oberg et al. 2009). A qualitative observation from this analysis is that there is significant homogeneity within the ways that firms described themselves on their websites, as well as the structure, tone and overall approach to the brand. Given the financial dominance of a small number of larger firms it is possible that only a smaller shift away from using the term market research by larger firms may have created wide isomorphic pressure.

Creating and demonstrating value

In relation to the question of value, it is possible that the research sector has been a victim of its own success. The concept of evidence-based decision making has spread throughout management, at least as an idea even if it is not widely put into practice. This is a parallel to the changes that have impacted marketing as a whole, as highlighted by the earlier comments on the diffusion of marketing (Webster et al. 2005). How many CEOs today would stand up and admit that they were more interested in operations and production than in customers? Some, perhaps, but not the majority. As the marketing concept has become more diffuse the professional identity of marketing has weakened. This is not by any means unique to marketing. Much contemporary management practice is built around the idea of agile organisations that are not hindered by previous organisational, professional and operational silos. What were previously thought of as departments or functions, and by extension career paths, are now sets of professional skills. As a consequence, the role of research as a creator of value has been subsumed within a more complex notion of insight.

The changing economic context

One very practical explanation might be found in the economic context surrounding market research. In the first half of the 20th century manufacturing was often concerned with producing enough to meet

5 1 6

I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f M a r k e t R e s e a r c h V o l. 5 8 Is s u e 4

demand. The need for new markets was limited by the absence of sufficient production volume to meet the needs of existing markets. During the post-war period an improvement in production efficiency, and a nascent growth in the ability to export finished products rather than just raw materials, led to the pursuit of new markets becoming a key strategic goal. Thus, the term market research was closely aligned with the strategic goals of organisations. As the scope and function of research has increased, and shifted, the term market research has become overly associated with corporate strategies that have themselves become dated. The focus of the economic context within strategic decision making has therefore moved away from markets and towards individual consumers, and the change in language used by firms reflects this.

Conclusion an d fu tu re qu estion s

Short sighted managements often fail to understand that there is no such thing as a growth industry ... The reason they defined their industry wrong is because they were product oriented rather than customer oriented. (Levitt 1960, p. 45)

In his classic paper ‘Marketing myopia’, the late Harvard academic Ted Levitt (1960) highlighted the strategic risks in being unable to answer the question ‘What industry am I in?’ More than half a century and thousands of citations later, the central point of this paper remains clear and prescient. Managers who are unable to address this question define their industries too narrowly, become complacent over success, and fail to respond and redefine their industries in the face of external change. Of course, there is a paradox in using this example in the context of market research. Levitt’s paper has been said to have heralded the start of the modern marketing revolution - the idea that customer orientation was of strategic importance to organisations. More than anything, it might be said that this message enabled the widespread growth of market research through persuading senior managers of the importance of understanding customer needs and looking towards new markets.

What is its relevance in 2016? The evidence suggests that the use of the term market research today is as a placeholder or a descriptor of a certain set of skills, and it appears to be largely used within the industry. The potential for research in commerce has, arguably, never been greater. However, the term market research is at the intersection of a number of declining factors, not least a perception of the decline in the value it can generate for its customers. This raises a number of important questions

5 1 7

The d e c lin in g use o f th e te r m m a rk e t research

that need to be addressed by key stakeholders in research. These include the following.

• Should universities continue to offer courses that are labelled ‘market research’?

• Should new graduates and other young professionals seek skills to develop a career in market research?

• Should market research journals and professional associations consider renaming themselves?

At this stage it would be tempting to make a recommendation that the market research world needs to reinvent itself, but the data analysed in this paper suggest that the industry is already doing so. In conclusion, the market research ‘industry’ has moved on and is increasingly defining itself in other ways - and, in showing this flexibility, it helps to secure its future success.

A p p e n d ix 1: C o n s o lid a t e d lis t o f la r g e s t m a r k e t r e s e a r c h f ir m s

2014 ranking

Company name

2014 (£m)

MR on home

p ag e /title

MR on 'about' page

MR in product

description

1 K a n ta r 46 4 .1 7 2 X X X

2 W o o d M a c k e n z ie Research & C o n s u ltin g 227.421 X X X

3 D u n n h u m b y 191.553 X X X

4 IpsosM O RI 165.200 Y Y Y

5 G a rtn e r 138.487 X X X

6 G fk 136.579 X X Y

7 N ielse n 120.715 Y X X

8 E u ro m o n ito r 88.295 Y Y Y

9 M in te i G ro u p 74.940 Y Y Y

10 O m n ic o m /D A S 74.021 X X Y

11 E b iq u ity 68.452 X X X

12 In fo rm a 66.932 X X X

13 I n fo rm a tio n R esources 39.107 X X X

14 C e llo G ro u p 38.001 X Y Y

15 IMS H e a lth 36.167 X X X

16 R esearch N o w 34.463 Y X X

(c o n tin u e d )

5 1 8

Intern ation al Journal o f M arket Research Vol. 58 Issue 4

2014 ranking

Company name

2014 (£m)

MR on home

p ag e/title

MR on 'about' page

MR in product

description

17 NatCen 34.154 X X X

18 MMR Group 28.100 Y X X

19 D ouble Helix 27.500 Y X X

20 BDRC Group 24.654 Y X X

21 Creston Insight 23.127 X Y X

22 The Research Partnership 21.017 Y Y Y

23 Toluna 20.991 X X X

24 W orldO ne Research 20.164 X y Y

25 Experian Consum er Insight 19.645 X X X

26 YouGov 19.400 X Y Y

27 Chim e 18.897 X X X

28 Frost & Sullivan 18.824 X Y Y

29 SPA Future T h in kin g 16.896 X X X

30 C o n firm it 16.354 Y Y Y

31 Forrester Research 16.080 X X Y

32 Hay G roup Insight 15.000 X X X

33 IDC 14.790 X X X

34 MaritzCX 13.727 X X X

35 comScore 13.500 X X Y

36 M arkit Economics 12.950 X X X

37 Incite M arke tin g Planning 12.620 X X X

38 Business Research G roup 12.230 Y Y X

39 Populus Group 12.187 X X X

40 ORC International 12.119 X X X

41 M arket Force In fo rm a tio n 11.550 X Y Y

42 Q uadrangle 11.509 X X X

43 Firefish 11.237 X X X

44 G allup O rganisation 11.117 Y X X

45 The Planning Shop In te rn a tio n al 11.079 X Y X

46 Footfall 10.630 X X X

47 Strategy Analytics 10.138 X Y Y

48 TTi G lobal Research 9.082 Y X Y

49 Brainjuicer 8.917 Y Y Y

50 KPMG N u n w o o d C onsulting 8.422 X X X

519

The declining use o f the term market research

Appendix 2: List of largest individual agencies

2014 ranking Company name

2014 (£m)

MR on home page/

title

MR in 'about' page

MR in product

description 1 Wood Mackenzie Research &

Consulting 227.421 X X X

2 TNS UK 195.334 Y X X

3 Dunnhumby 191.553 X X X

4 IpsosMORI 165.200 Y Y Y

5 Gartner 138.487 X X X

6 ACNielsen 101.534 Y X X 7 Millward Brown 101.101 X X X

8 Gfk NOP 94.096 Y X Y

9 Euromonitor 88.295 Y Y Y

10 Mintel Group 74.940 Y Y Y

11 Ebiquity 68.452 X X X

12 Kantar Media 52.730 X X X

13 Precise Media M onitoring 50.886 X X Y

14 Informa Telecoms & Media 42.104 X X X

15 Information Resources 39.107 X X X

16 IMS Health 36.167 X X X

17 Lightspeed Research 35.869 Y Y X

18 Research Now 34.463 Y X X

19 NatCen 34.154 X X X

20 Hall & Partners 27.727 X X X

21 Double Helix 27.500 Y X X

22 Datamonitor 24.848 X X X

23 Flamingo Research 24.044 X X X

24 Gfk Retail & Technology 23.828 X X Y

25 The Research Partnership 21.017 Y Y Y

26 Toluna 20.991 X X X

27 MMR Research W orldwide 20.200 Y X X

28 WorldOne Research 20.164 X y Y

29 Experian Consumer Insight 19.645 X X X

30 YouGov 19.400 X Y Y

31 Frost & Sullivan 18.824 X Y Y

32 SPA Future Thinking 16.896 X X X

(continued)

S20

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 58 Issue 4

2014 ranking Company name

2014 (£m)

MR on hom e page/

title

MR in 'about' page

MR in product

description

33 Confirmit 16.354 Y Y Y

34 Cello Health Insight 16.228 X Y Y

35 Forrester Research 16.080 X X Y

36 Hay Group Insight 15.000 X X X

37 I DC 14.790 X X X

38 MaritzCX 13.727 X X X

39 Nielsen Media Research 13.671 Y X X

40 comScore 13.500 X X Y

41 BDRC Continental 13.155 Y X X

42 Markit Economics 12.950 X X X

43 Incite Marketing Planning 12.620 X X X

44 Business Research Group 12.230 Y Y X

45 Populus Group 12.187 X X X

46 ORC International 12.119 X X X

47 Market Force Information 11.550 X Y Y

48 Quadrangle 11.509 X X X

49 2CV 11.359 Y X X

50 Firefish 11.237 X X X

R e f e r e n c e s

Arnold, P. (1947) Woman’s role in market research .Journal o f Marketing, 12, 1, pp. 87-91. Association of Business Schools (ABS) (2015) Academic Journal Guide 2015. Available online

at: http://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-2015/ (accessed 13 January 2016). Blankenship, A. (1949) Needed: a broader concept of marketing research .Journal o f

Marketing, 13, 3, p. 305. Boddy, C. & Croft, R. (2007) The strength of British market research is British market

researchers: a reply to Piercy. International journal o f Market Research, 49, 3, pp. 287-298. Cooke, M. & Buckley, N. (2008) Web 2.0, social networks and the future of market research.

International Journal o f Market Research, 50, 2, 267-292. DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and

collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, pp. 147- 160.

Freidson, E. (2001) Professionalism: The Third Logic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hirose, A. (1945) Market research as a practical help in reconversion problems. Journal o f Marketing, 9, 4, p. 342.

Hirschowitz, A. (2001) Closing the CRM loop: the 21st century marketer’s challenge: transforming customer insight into customer value. Journal o f Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 10, 2, pp. 168-178.

521

The declining use o f the term market research

Le Farm, J. (2011) The Rise and Fall o f Modern Medicine. London: Abacus. Levitt, T. (1960) Marketing Myopia. Harvard Business Review, 38, 4 (July-August), pp. 45-56. Lewis, I. (2012) The future of market research. International Journal o f Market Research, 54, 1,

pp. 11-13. Lockey, L. (1950) Notes on the history of marketing research. Journal o f Marketing, 14, 5,

pp. 733-736. Oberg, A., Schoellhorn, T. & Woywode, M. (2009) Isomorphism in organisational self­

representation in the World Wide Web? Institutionalisation process regarding internet presentation of organisations. Academy o f Management Proceedings, 1, pp. 1-6.

Poynter, R. (2014) Marketing research or market research? An unhelpful distinction. NewMR Blog. Available online at: http://newmr.org/blog/marketing-research-or-market-research-a- unhelpful-distinction/ (accessed 13 January 2016).

Pratt, M., Rockmann, K. & Kaufmann, J. (2006) Constructing professional identity: the role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy o f Management Journal, 49, 2, pp. 235-262.

Said, E., Macdonald, E., Wilson, H. & Marcos, J. (2015) How organisations generate and use customer insight. Journal o f Marketing Management, 31, 9-10, pp. 1158-1179.

Smith, B., Wilson, H. & Clark, M. (2006) Creating and using customer insight: 12 rules of best practice. Journal o f Medical Marketing, 6, 2, pp. 135-139.

Tallis, R. (2004) Hippocratic Oaths. London: Atlantic Books. Warrington, A. (1940) Diminishing returns in market research. Journal o f Marketing, 5, 2,

p. 167. Webster, F., Maker, A. & Ganesan, S. (2005) The decline and dispersion of marketing

competence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46, 4, pp. 34-43.

A b o u t th e a u th o r

Daniel Nunan is a lecturer in management at Birkbeck, University of London. He has published in international journals including the journal o f Business Ethics, N ew Technology, Work and Employment, the International Journal o f Market Research and the International Journal o f Retail and Distribution Management. He is a member of the editorial board of the International Journal o f Market Research and was nominated for the Market Research Society Silver Medal in 2012 and 2014.

Address correspondence to: Daniel Nunan, Department of Management, Birkbeck, University of London, Torrington Square, London, WC1E 7JL.

Email: [email protected]

5 2 2

Copyright of International Journal of Market Research is the property of Warc LTD and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.